Skip to main content

Full text of "A Treatise on the Mode and Subjects of Christian Baptism: In Two Parts : Designed as a Reply to ..."

Google 



This is a digital copy of a book lhal w;ls preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as pari of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one thai was never subject 

to copy right or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often dillicull lo discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher lo a library and linally lo you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud lo partner with libraries lo digili/e public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order lo keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial panics, including placing Icchnical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make n on -commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request thai you use these files for 
personal, non -commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort lo Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each lile is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use. remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 

countries. Whether a book is slill in copyright varies from country lo country, and we can'l offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull lexl of 1 1 us book on I lie web 
al |_-.:. :.-.-:: / / books . qooqle . com/| 



A 



TREATISE 



*>N THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OP 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



'*V TWO PARTS. 



ttE&GNED AS AttEFLT TO TttB STATEMENTS AND REASONINGS 09 THE 

■REV: ADONIRAM JUDSON, 3tm> 

exhibited in his " Sermon, preached in ihe Lai Bazar Chapel* 
Calcutta, on Lord's-Day, September 27, 1812," and 
recently republished in this Country .^ 



BY ENOCH PONl>, 

Potior of the Congregational Church in Ward, (Jfos*.) 



i . 



C? VttVTH HAS BEEN USUALLY ELICITED BY CONTROVERSY." /U>BE*T BALI, 



*■* 



aSDlotcwtrr x 
PMMTED BY WILLIAM MAWMMQ. 

MAY, 1818. 






7? 9 



IHstrictof Massachusetts, to vAt : 

District Clerk's Office, 

BE IT REMEMBERED, tbat on the thirteenth day of April, A. 0. eighteen 
hundred and eighteen, in the forty-second year of the Independence of the United 
States of America, Enoch Pond, of the said District, has deposited in this Of- 
fice the Title of a Book, the Right whereof he claims as Author, in the words fol- 
lowing, to wit: r' 

" A Treatise on the Mode and Subjects*of Christian Baptism, In two Parts. 
Designed as a Reply to the Statements and Reasonings* of the Rev. Adonikah 
Judson, Jun. as exhibited in his c Sermon, preached in the Lai Bazar Chapel, 
Calcutta, on Lord's Day, September 27, 1812,' and recently republished in this 
Country. By Enoch Pond, Pastor of the Congregational Church in Ward, 
(Mass.)—— 4 Truth has been usually elicited by controversy*' Robert Hall." 

Ill conformity to* the Act' of the Congress* of the United States, entitled, u Art 
Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by seething tile Copies of Maps, Charts 
and Books, to the Aruthom atod Proprietors of such Copies, during the times there- 
in mentioned :" ahd also to an Act entitled, " An Act supplementary to an Act, 
entitled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of 
Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during 
the times therein mentioned ; and extending the benefits thereof to the Arts of 
Designing, Engraving and Etching Historical and other Prints," 

JNO. W. DAVIS, 

Clerk of the Dutrut of Ma**achuseU% 



•% • 



VI.*. 



■V* t - - 



u 




% VI 

? INTRODUCTION. 

\ 

4 

^ THE mere suggestion of the ensuing Treatise will probably excite 
in some minds inquiries such as these — u Why should any thing far* 
ther*be written on the subject of Baptism? Why should more be 
attempted, where every thing that can be said has been repeatedly 
said already ? Why revive a controversy which has been so long pro* 
traded, and to sorlittle purpose IV — The writer answers, that, should 
the charge of reviving this controversy fall on him, he s?es not at 
present any cause for alarm. He is not conscious of an undue predi- 
lection for religious controversy. He ardently desires the day, when 
* 4 watchmen" and watched w shall see eye to eye." Still, when he 
reflects that the labours of the best of men have been in manv in- 
stances controversial, and that no inconsiderable portion even of the 
Sacred Volttne is of the same description ; he cannot admit that un- 
der existing circumstances religious N controversy is universally to be 
deprecated. He accedes to the sentiment of the immortal Bacon, who 
considered it " weak divinity, to account controversies an ill sign in 
the church. In ignorance and implied belief," says he, " it is easy to 
agree, as colours agree in the dark. If any country decline into athe- 
ism, then controversies wax dainty ; became men do not think religion 
worth the falling out for"** 

But is the present revival of this controversy properly chargeable 
to the writer ? When Mr. Judson wrote and published his Sermon, 
with the avowed design- of transmitting it to America, he well knew 
that he was treading on controversial ground y and he had every rea- 
son to expect, unless he supposed it would force universal conviction, 
that some one in his native country would attempt a reply. 

Besides the usual reasons which are adduced to justify publications 
like the present, there are some which seem to render the ensuing 
discussion peculiarly necessary. The circumstances under which the 
Discourse before us has been brought forward, will unavoidably throw 
it into the hands of many who have never attended to the subject of 
which it treats, t Such ought to have it in their power to judge of 
the matter fairly. They ought tp be able to look at it on more than 
one side. Were no answer given to this Discourse, they would read- 

* Works, vol. iii. p. 59, in Christ. Qbserv. to], x. p. 100. 

t u The interest which that event (referring to Mr. Judsox's change of senti- 
ments) has excited in the Christian community, attaches an importance to tins 
Discourse, and cannot fail to secure it a general ciYf wZafton."— — Review of Mr. 
JcbsoW's Sermon in Amer. Bap. Magazine, vol. i. page 21. \* 



w 



\r 



INTRODUCTION.. 



ily conclude that none could be given. These considerations, mope 
than any drawn from the work itself, have appeared to demand that it 
•hould be examined.* . 

Mr. Judson is a person whom for several years we have been accus- 
tomed to respect. It is with pain we find ourselves under obligations 
to controvert what he has advanced. It is particularly painful that 
we*are to become the instrument of communicating facts which seri- 
ously implicate his moral character. His particular friends may rest 
assured that we have no pleasure in detraction, and that it would af- 
ford us the highest happiness, could the mysteries of his conduct be 
fully developed, and the charge which in the ensuing pages lies against 
ltym be fairly removed. 

Our object has not been to furnish a reply merely to Mr. Judson* 
We have designed to exhibit a summary view of the evidence in far 
Tour of the Pedobaptist cause. 

Our references are to the second American edition of the Discourse, 
published by Messrs. Lincoln <$• Edmands, Boston. 

The author supplicates the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to guard 
him from sophistry and errour^ from misrepresentation and unchris-: 
tian severity ; and that his labours may be a means of dissipating de- 
lusion, and prompting the cause of truth and righteousness upon earth, 

* " I have thought and said,** says tl*e Rev. Dr. Worcester, in a letter ta y 
the .author, " that Mr. Judson^s Sermon ought to be answered ; not so much on 
account of its mtrmsick force, as of the extraneous circumstances %hich sexve^. to 
give it a currency and influence, tor wWph it fa no$ 'justly entitled." 



A TREATISE; &c. 



PART I. 

On the Mode of Christian Baptism. 



Section k 

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS- 

IN the first words of Mr. Jur> son's pamphlet, he 
informs us that he " was by education and profession a Pe- 
dobaptist." — This fact is not yet forgotten by his Pedo- 
baptist friends in America* They distinctly remember 
that he was once of their number, and that he shared lib- 
erally their benefactions. 

He also informs us, that "during his passage from A- 
merica to India, in the spring of 1812, he began to doubt 
the truth of his former sentiments ;" and that " after his 
arrival in that country, and before he communicated the 
exercises of his mind to any of the Baptist denomination, 
he became" an established convert to the peculiarities of 
the Baptist faith.— Pedobaptists would gladly indulge the 
hope that these pretensions are sincere — that Mr. Judson 
was influenced in this matter by a sense of duty* and acted 
in the fear of God. They cannot, however, repress the 
opinion, after a deliberate investigation of concomitant cir- 
cumstances, that his change is one of the most mysterious 
and unaccountable events which has ever occurred in the 
Christian world. 

His professed object, in transmitting his Discourse a- 
cross the ocean, was to furnish " his distant friends in A- 
merica with a more full and satisfactory statement of the 
reasons of his change, than could be made in private com* 



munications*"— But his Pedobaptist friends are not satis- 
fied with these reasons. They see not how they could 
have induced his present belief. It is admitted that he has 
advanced nothing materially new, in support of the Baptist 
cause. The statements he has made have been made be- 
fore. # The reasonings he has employed have been employ- 
ed before. And in the course of his theological education; 
it would seem he must have known this. The arguments 
he has now advanced and pronounced conclusive, he must 
have previously examined and pronounced unsound. The 
representations he has now made, with apparently the ut- 
most confidence, he must have previously considered, and 
pronounced incorrect. 

It is somewhat remarkable in the case of Mr. Judson, 
that he should be changed to precisely such a point. Hav- 
ing begun to waver, why did he waver just so far, and no 
farther ? Without communicating his " exercises^ to any 
of the Baptist denomination," why did he at length fasten 
©n those very topicks which constitute the peculiarities of 
the Baptist faith ? At a period when his own circumstances 
were greatly perplexed, and when liable to imagine that 
some new expedient might improve them ; how came he 
to fall in so exactly with those Missionaries among whom 
Providence had for a few days thrown him, and who were 
now prosperously established, and engaged in their benevo- 
lent work ?~ We very well know what reply his friends 
will make to the preceding queries and observations ;* b$t 
we shall be happy to acknowledge ourselves mistaken, if 
they succeed in rendering the matter perfectly clear. 

Another remarkable circumstance respecting Mr. Jud- 
son's cha«ge, xithe concealment qf his views from his mis- 
sionary brethren. He certainly could not have renounced 
Pedobaptift principles without a struggle. He could not 
have been honestly brought to decide, that those ministers 
with whom he had ever associated were not regular minis, 
ters of Christ ; that those churches with which he was con* 
nected, on which he was dependent, and to which he was 
under solemn obligations, were not regularly constittjtecl 
churches of Christ ; that his reverend father and most inti- 
mate Christian friends had never been baptized in the name 
of the Trinity, pr rightly professed the Christian faith ; 
yea, tjhat he himself had constantly fostered that, which 



* 4 

(pursued td what Jiecfeeriis its direct consequences) is "tire 
most pernicious practice which ever infested and hid waste 
the vineyard of the Lord"— he could not possibly have beeit 
brought to such a decision> without a deep inward conflict* 
How strange, then, that the conffiit never became visible ! 
that it was neither observed by, nor revealed to, his mission- 
ary companions f Here is a band of brothers, going forth 
with the gospel to a land of idols, not only under peculiar 
obligations, but, it should seem, peculiarly disposed, to 
maintain an intercourse the most frank and open ; and yet 
one of them passes through a scene of the utmost mental 
trouble ; dissents from the church order of his ancestors, 
supporters, and associates ; and is at length on the point of 
a eomptete separation from them, and has never made to 
them the slightest intimations of what had passed, and was 
passing m his mind !• !* 

. It would be weH if the mystery of this event were now 
fully disclosed. It would be well if the truth would suffer 
us to stop here. Gladly would I be released from that 
most unpleasant task which lies before me. Impelled, 
however, by a high sense of duty and of my sacred obliga- 
tions to the cause of truth, I must proceed \o a disclosure 
of facts, which, for the honour of the Christian ministry 
and the Christian name, it is with reluctance I become the 
instrument of spreading before the world. 

It wiH be recollected by many, that soon alter the intel- 
ligence of Mr. Jitdson's change had reached America, ft 

* In confirmation of this statement, we refer file reader to the* report of the 
Prudential Comtnittee of the A\ B. C. F. M. for 1813 ; inserted in the Panoplist 
for September of the same year. It appears from this report, that Messrs. New- 
SLi and Jttdsow, with their wives, left this country on board the same shipy ana 
arrived at Calcutta, June 17, 1812. Messrs. Hall, Nott, and Rics, with the; 
wife of Mr. No-rr, left the country soon after, on board another ship, and arrivedr 
atf Calcutta the eighth of August of the same year.- Before the arrival of this let* 
tor ship, Messrs. Newell and Judson had been ordered away ; and Mr. New- 
ell with his wife had actually sailed for the Isle of France. He left Mr. Jud~ 
#ow f say the Prudential Committee, " withvtti any krttmledge of hi* chcenge*"*- 
Four day* after Mr, Nkwxll's departure, the other brethren arrived at Calcutta- 
They were there in company with Mr. Judsojt, neaily three weeks, when r on the 
dftfr of August, he left them to go to Serftmpore, for the purpose of being imnieHed. 
Hw brethren, even at this tatt moment, were totally "unapproved of the object ©£ 
his visit" to Serampore, " and received their first intelligence on the subject, two days 

afterwards, from Dr. MAAraflULN." ! f ! We cannot forbear adding a word or 

two more. A letter was written, about twenty days after Mr. Junsov's tatter' 
sion, and signed by Mr. Rice, wherein mention is made of what had happened r 
as a "trying evert*." "Yet within less than four weeks of the date of this letter^ 
Mr. Rics had followed him I! ' 



• 4 



Was hinted, in certain circles, that this had been induced 
by resentment. He had received, previously to his leav* 
ing the country, a solemn reprimand or admonition from 
the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions ; and 
the affront occasioned ty it had induced him to desert 
them. Rumours like these at length found their way into 
the East, and reached the ears of Mr* Judson* tn answer 
to them, he addressed a letter to the Rev. Dr. Baldwin, 
from which t the following is faithfully extracted.— " I 
would simply state, that the American Board of Commis- 
sioners NEVER CAVE ME A REPRIMAND. In proof of 

this, r / can appeal to any xf the members* Furthermore, 
i never had the host distant idea that the 
Board thought me deserving of a reprimand., 
When I left my native land, it afforded me much comfort, 
that I came out under the patronage of such mew."*- — — 
Let the ptiblick compare these solemn and unequivocal as* 
sertions with the following official statement of facts, com* 
municated in a letter to the author, by the Corresponding 
Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for 
Foreign Missions. 

* Salem, March 1% *l8l8» 

REV. ANf) dear SiR^ 

Your letter, requesting u an official statement of facts*] 
respecting a reprimand or admonition which Mr* JtibsoN 
received from the American Board of Commissioners for 
Foreign Missions," was duly received, and has been sub- 
mitted to the Prudential Committee, for advisement. 

It is a maxim with the Board, and with the Prudential 
Committee, to. be religiously circumspect and tender in re* 
gard to characters connected with the sacred cause of Mis* 
fcions, and to make no unnecessary exposures or animad- 
versions. On this maxim they have acted, and still wish' 
to act, in relation to Mr. Jtjdson* As, however, he has 
seen fit publickly to appeal to the Board, and "to any 
member," and his appeal has been backed by an earnest 
and reiterated challenge on the part of his friends, it seems 
due, in justice to the Board and to truth, that a simple and 
concise statement of facts should be exhibited. 

* Mr. Judson's Letter to Dr. Baldwin, dated Rangoon, Dec* 23, 1815, ifr 
Jttted in the Bap. Miss. Magazine, vol. iv. p. 346. 



-v 



^■WHWBWW^WWW^W ' •** ■ »J»1 



9 

In the beginning 6f the' year 1811, Mr. Jtrft&our was 
tent by the Prudential Committee to England, for pur- 
pose?, distinctly specified in his instructions. In that mis* 
sion> what he was instructed not to do, he did ; and what 
he was instructed to do* he neglected. On his return, in 
luly of the same year* he kept himself aloof from the Pru- 
dential Committee* made no regular report of his doings, 
ftnct assumed the management of matters in his own way* 
At the meeting of the Board at Worcester,, in the follow- 
ing September,, his answers to questions, his conversation, 
and deportment, were in the same spirit and manner which 
had marked his previous proceedings. 

Great dissatisfaction was expressed by every member 
present ; and it became a very serious question, whether 
Mr. Ju-dsov should not be dismissed. After deliberav 
tion, however, it was resolved^ that he should be in a formal 
and solemn manner admonished. The admonition* 

WAS ACCORDINGLY ADMINISTERED IN PRESENCE OF 

the Board. Mr. Judson was much affected— < appeared 
tp yield to the admonition— made concessions and gave 
assurances— and was continued under the patronage of the 
Board* 

Yet after all this, and even after a passage had been en- 
gaged for him, with others, to India, in the February fol- 
lowing, his deportment was such, that it again became a 
serious and most trying question with the Prudential Com- 
mittee, whether he should be permitted to go. And it 
Was not without great heaviness of heart, manyiears, and 
particular but tender cautions, not to him only, but to the 
other Missionaries respecting him, that he was finally sent 
<iut.t . 

* An admonition may have respect either to danger, or to actual offence. In 
Ore latter case, which is the case here, the term is precisely of the same import its 
reprimand.-— An another communication from the Reverend Secretary, he says» 
" Mr< 4ip*P* «w* admonished and reprimanded in solemn form." * 

t u What emotions," says the Baptist Reviewer of Mr. Jcbson's Sermon, 
* l what . emotions must he have felt, conscious as he was of having followed the 
dictates of truth, and that, if 1 ever there was an action performed from one single 
motive, unblended with any minor considerations, his baptism was an action of that 
description 1 ! what emotions must he have felt to hear in that distant land, that 
1 the prevailing opinion among his Pedobaptist friends in x America' was, * that 
shortly before he sailed, he received a reprimand from the Board, which so offend- 
ed him, that he resolved to have nothing more to do with them ; and in no way' 
could he escape so honourably as by becoming a Baptist!' So far from having re- 
ceived a reprimand, he declares *M had not &e ih**t distant itfen that ike Boqr& 

% v 



16 

The seqiitf vs flublidkly kncftvn. The ultimate issue' I* 
with Him, to whose sovereign wisdom, and power, and 
goodness it belongs, to overrule the wayward dispositions 
and actions of men for the advancement of his own glory 
and kingdom. 

Yours, Re w and dear Sir, wkh very affectionate respects, 

S. WORCESTER, 

Rev. Enoch Pon*. Cor ; Sec ' * * * * M : 

To this official and unequivocal statement of facts, what 
will Mr. Judsx)n reply ? To deny the smallest particular, 
would be to contradict a body of men, which fields to none 
in America in point of respectability and* worth. To quib- 
ble and equivocate or) the meaning of certain words, would 
discover the opposite of an honest, humble spirit ; and, in- 
stead of exonerating him, would m the estimation of the 
candid confirm his guilt. To* pretend forgetfuhiess of the 
fact he has denied, would be perfectly unaccountable, and 
excite the suspicion of an attempt to impose upon the pub- 
lick. In short, we see but one course which Mr. J. can 
dutifully pursue. He must retrace his steps. The credit 
of Congregationalism does 'not Require th^t he should re- 
turn to his fofmer sentiments ; but the credit of religion 
does imperiously require, that he humble himself, and be' 
willing to confess the truth. 

" It will perhaps be asked— What connexion has the pre- 
ceding statement with the subject under consideration? 
Admitting Mr. J. was reprimanded;, what influence- cotrid 

ever thought him deserving of one p and we are very much mistaken, if Mr. Jun- 
to* did not stand high in ike estimation of the Board, both as a scholar and a 

preacher, when he sailed from America." Is {his Reviewer, mistaken, or not?" 

— — ■ — u To what motive, then,"- he continues, " can we attribute the circulation of 
such a report ? If Mr. J. had received a reprimand, he surely must have known it. But 
lie positively asserts that he did not receive one ; and * for the truth of his assertion, 
appeals to any member of ihe Bbard.' Is it possible to believe he would have made 
an assertion which he knew to be false, and which he must- have* knoq^'any 
member o£ the Board' could easily prove to* be false ? If his character had been 
disgraced in the estimation of his friends, by any conduct before,, or any change 
of sentknent after, bis departure from America, he must certainly, have known 
that, the donial of a fact SQ-ttofenibus would only involve him in still greater dis- 
grace. We are compelled to believe the report is unfounded*. From, whatever 
source it originated, we fear it was designed, by attributing his change to an improper 
motive, to omirtferact the impression which that change' was likely to make on 
.the minds of the community.. Whenever we are satisfied that in this we are mis-, 
taken, we shall be ready to acknowledge it J' (Amer. Bap.. Magazine,, vol. i. p% 
26.}—*— Is not this Reviewer mistaken, again l> — We hope the pledged acknowl- 
edgment will not be lonfc delated. 



H 

.this Tiave on his subsequent change * — We answer ; he ev* 
idently suspected, were the fact admitted, that it would be 
supposed to have influenced his change ; or he never would 
have endeavoured to" hide it, by a denial of the truth:— . 
Those who have attended to, and who credit, the precede 
ing representation, will fear that Mr. J, possesses naturally 
.a proud, unstable, aspiring temper; and none need be in- 
formed, that mortified jmde and cramped ambition are 
powerful stimulants of revenge. — HoweveF, as the publick 
now possess the facts, we leave them to their own conclu- 
sions. Those who know Mr, Judson best, will be ena- 
bled to decide with the most correctness. 

Forbearing to offer any farther remarks on his change 'of 
sentiments, we proceed to examine more closely the Dis- 
course itself. The author acknowledges, that " for many 
of the testimonies he has inserted, he is indebted to Mr* 
Booth's Pedbbaptism Examined. "-~We have doubted 
whether this acknowledgment justifies all the use which 
he has made of that publication. Every reader has a right 
to know how much of any work is to be accredited to its 
ostensible* author. Can every reader know this of the work 
before us? ;What are " the testimonies*' for which he ac- 
knowledges himself indebted ? Are they merely the quota- 
tions which he has actually transcribed ? or do they in- 
clude that host of references which in some instances we 
find in the margin? In short, what part of the work be- 
longs to Mr Judson, and what to Mr. Booth ? There 
ought to be no foundation for questions like these. The 
very face of the Discourse should completely preclude 
them.- 1 — -There evidently is in this Sermon a great (not 
to say needless) parade of learning. We hope it was not 
Mr. Jud son's design to be accredited with all diis learn- 
ing himself; but w;e are sure a great proportion of his 
readers are in danger of mistaking the truth. If he is a 
modest man, therefore, he will wish it should be stated, 
that nearly all his quotations and references, unless it be 
those of a very modern date, are transcribed, verbatim et 
literatim, from Mr. Booth and others; and that a great 
proportion of the learning displayed in the work is not a* 
riginally his own. * 

* We had the curiosity to spend an hour or two in comparing Mr. Jrosov'* 
Beraton with " Fedobaptwa Ejainiaed." We directly discovered between &£(& 



+ -e 



12 

If we understand Mr. J. he has spmewhat narrowed the 

ound of controversy, respecting the mode of baptism. 

e has honourably abandoned some sources of argument, 
which in former times have been deemed essential. 

He gives up, in the outset, the baptism of John, as being 
a Christian ordinance. He expressly asserts, that our Lord 
u instituted the ordinance of baptism" after his resurrection, 
and " when, he commissioned his disciples to proselyte ail 
nations." (P. 3!)> 

He admits that " the phrase, went into the water y does 
not imply in itself that the subjects were immersed. It is 
one thing," says he, " to go into the water y and another 
thing to be immersed." (P. 9.) 

He also admits, that the being " buried with Christ in 
baptism," mentioned in the epistles to the Romans and 
•Colossians, has no reference to water Baptism. . In this 
passage, says he, "the apostle is speaking of spiritual cir- 
cumcision, and spiritual baptism" (P. 28.) Hence all, the 
regenerate have been "buried with Christ in baptism," 
whether they have received water baptism in any mode, or 
»ot. 

Whatever the Baptist brethren in America, some of 
whom have laid very exorbitant stress on these conceded 
topicks, may think of Mr. Judson, we frankly confess that 
here is evidence of his candour. We sincerely hope his 
admirers will go and do Kkeitnse. Let them lekve at length 
the waters of Enon and Jordan, on the banks oT which they 
have been so much accustomed to stand. Let them cease 
the very moving but unmeaning declamation, which they 
have repeated on nearly every baptismal occasion, about 
*• following their Lord and Master into the liquid grave-"* 

<md seventy quotation* with their references, and nearly forty references where 
there were no quotations^ which were manifestly transcribed* from this learned 
work ! These quotations and references must have cost Mr, Booth more febeur 
than to write a folio- Ail the credit he has for them, je crowded into less than 
three indefinitely and equivocally constructed lines ! 1 

* The reviewer of Mr. Jcdson's Sermon in the Baptist Magazine " considers 
it a great confirmation of the doctrine" he has espoused, " that its advocates al- 




-We could name a writer (a) iff defence of the Baptist cause,who has laboured 
hard to prove that the baptism of John was a Christian ordinance. This, Mr. Jt/p- 
.qpff does Hot believe. We could name a number of writers, who have aeajij' 

(a) Rev. Dr. Baldwin, Editor of Bap. Magazine* 



13 

Before any thing be offered on either side respecting th? 
mode of baptism, it is important that the point in contro- 
versy should be precisely ascertained. While this remains 
undetermined, conviction is impossible. 

The question at issue in this part of the subject, is not 
.whether immersion is a vaHd mode of baptism : this we ad- 
mit. Nor is it whether this mode is preferable to all others; 
for we are willing that those who prefer immersion, even in 
our own churches, should be indulged. Nor is it whether 
immersion was frequently practised in the early ajjes of 
Christianity : this we have no necessity or disposition to 
deny. We do not say that neither of these points is ques- 
tionable ; but neither of them is the precise question in dis* 
putc. The point at issue is in few words this— -Is immer- 
sion essential? Mr. Jubson cpntepds* that the idea of im- 
mersion enters into the very " nature of baptism ; that .the 
terms baptism and immersion are equivalent and interchange* 
pble." (P. 14.) He evidently supposes immersion essen- 
tial to the ordinance. This, then, is the point to which his 
reasonings ought to tend* AU he can offer, to show that 
.immersion is a valid mode ; or even the most proper mode ; 
*>r that it was frequently practised in ancient times ; carrier 
no conviction to us. Let him prove, what we deny, that 
immersion is .essential to baptism) and the controversy is a£ 
an end. fc 

The burden of proof, in this case, manifestly lies on him. 
His is the labouring oar. " It is not necessary for us to 
urge one argument," to prove the negative of the proppsi. 
tion in debate. It is incumbent on him to prove the posi- 
tive. We are willing, however, to wave every advantage 
which might be derived by subjecting him to an arrange* 
ment like this. We wish to examine the subject fairly. 
And we shall proceed, in the ensuing sections, to prove 
that immetsion is not essential to baptism, and to obviate 
%e objections which Mr. Judson has been able to throw 
in the way. , 

MMed their ideas of exclusive immersion on the phrases, went into the wafer, 
Untried by baptism, &c. The opinion of Mr» Judson respecting these phrases hai 
been expressed above.— " Happy is he that Co&demneth not huaself in that thing 
^Uch he aUoweth." (Rom, sir. 2g.> 



.fete* •' 



t • 



14 



Section II. 

# 

Proof that Immersion is not essential to Baptism. 

1. The rite of immersion is in no wise fitted fpr univer- 
sal pmctice. It cannot be administered with prudence and 
convenience, if indeed it can be administered at all, in ev- 
ery situation, and to all persons.— -Places have been discov- 
ered which are already inhabited, where collections of wa- 
ter sufficient for this mode of baptism would not once oc- 
cur, in travelling perhaps hundreds of miles.*— There 
tire other places which swarm with inhabitants, where, a- 
midst mountains of ice and almost perpetual snow, immer- 
sions must be inconvenient, imprudent, and often imprac- 
ticable. Yet the religion of Christ will one day penetrate 
those arid, and these frozen regions. Their miserable in- 
habitants will yet be baptized, in the name of the Father, 
§on, and Holy Ghost. Will they be immersed ? Wane 
three thousand to come- forward at once, in either of the 
situations to which we have alluded, (and such a scene has 
been once witnessed under the -gospel dispensation,) would 
they, could they be immersed ?— *The thing speaks for it- 
s&f.f We may take another very common instance. 
A person is ir\ a tow and declining state of health. He 
loves his Saviour, and wishes to obey his commands. He 
wishes to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and, 
in remembrance of him, to come to his table. But to be 
immersed, he is sensible, would be little better than self- 
murder. . Must he, then, be debarred from the ordinances 

* See Campbell's Travels across the Continent of ^Africa* 

t The following very pertinent and ingenious remarks are extracted from 
$r. Austht'b rejoinder in his controversy with Mr. Merkill. (See p. 41.)-— 
^ In besieged cities, where there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of peo- 
ple ; in sandy deserts, like those of Africa, Arabia, and Palestine ; in the northern 
regions, where the streams, if there be any, are* shut up \vfth impenetrable ice ; 
and in severe and extensive droughts, like that which took plage in the time of 
Ahab ; sufficiency of a water for animal subsistence is scarcely to be procured. 
Kow. suppose God should, according to the predictions of the prophets, pour put 
plentiful effusions of his Spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions or 
cities shall be born in a day.' Upon the Baptist hypothesis, there is an absolute 
impossibility they should be born into the kingdom while there is this scarcity of 
water ; and this may last as long as they live. And these thousands and hundreds 
of thousands of Christians must remain all this while, and perhaps die, without 
having the consolation of professing their faith in Christ, ©roace supping witothejr 
Divine Redeemer." 



*r 



*-♦ 



15 



,* 



of the gospel ? On the scheme we oppose, this mast inev- 
itably be his lot. Can this scheme, then, be -consistent 
with truth ? Has the Lord Jesus, who designed his relig- 
ion to be universal, appended to it, and made essential, a 
rite which is so ill fitted for universal practice ? 

2. The signification of water baptism furnishes a strong 
argument in favour of some other mode beside immersion. 
Water baptism is unquestionably ah emblem of spiritual 
baptism. Hence tile mode of water baptism may be ex* 
pected to resemble the mode of spiritual baptism, or the 
mannefm which the Holy Spirit is said to descend upon 
the heart. This is uniformly by pouring or sprinklings 
* I will pour out my Spirit unto you. I will pour my 
Spirit on thy seed. I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
flesh. He shall come down like rain on the mown grass, 
fio shall he sprinkle many nations. I will sprinkle clean 
water upon you, and ye shall be clean."*— This pour- 
ing out, and sprinkling of the Holy Ghost, is called the bap> 
tism of the Holy Ghost. f And of this baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, water baptism is the instituted emolem. How 
plain, then, that affusion and sprinkling are legitimate and 
proper modes of w&ter baptism. 

In order to evade this argument, Mr. J, seems to sup- 
pose that none were ever baptized with the Holy Ghost; 
except on the day of Pentecost ; and that at this time the 
Spirit was so copiously poured out, that believers were re* 
ally immersed in it J (P. 8.) But every real child of- God 
hfts been baptized with the Spirit. "By one Spirit are we 
all baptized into or\e body." (1 Cor. xii. 13.) He must 
prove, therefore, that every Christian has been ovenvhelm* 
ft/with Divine influences—- has been immersed in the Spir- 
it, as he shrewdly enough supposes the favoured multi- 
tude were on the day of Pentecost ; or he has done noth- 
ing towards invalidating the argument he has called in 
question. 

3. " The word which denotes the ordinance of baptism" 
does not " yriiformly signify immersion." — We agree with 

. * Pro*, i. 23 ; Is. xliv. 3 ; Joel ii. 28 ; Fs. lxxii. 6 ; Is. lii. 15 ; Ilsek. xxxii. 25. 
t Comp. Acts i. 5, with ii. 1®, 17 ; and x. 45, with xi. Iff. 

l be said to 
plunged into 




Mr. J. that the whale controversy respectingthe iflddtaf fcafM 
* tism rests very materially on the meaning of this word* * ' Ha<J 
the Greek word {hpfllty* been translated in the English version 
of the New Testament, there would have been no dispute 
among English readers concerning its import. " (P„ 3^)-— 
Why then, we ask, was it not translated ? On the scheme 
of Mr. J. no answer can be givei} to this inquiry, which 
will not be a reflection on the translators. Will he say 
they did not know the import of this word ? Then they 
were inadequate to their great undertaking. Will he say 
that, knowing it, they chose not to give it ? Then they 
weakly shrunk from the duty assigned them, and are in a 
degree chargeable with all the evil th^ has ensued.— Why 
was not this Greek word translated ? On the ground we 
have taken, the whole matter is plain. It was because the 
translators knew of no word in the English language which, 
precisely answered to it in signification. They did not 
render it immerse, because they knew it did not uniformly 
signify immerse. And they did not render it sprinkle, be- 
cause they knew it did not uniformly signify sprinkle* 
They rather preferred, by transcribing the word, to leayp 
it as they found it, and thus leave every one at liberty to 
practise that mode of baptism which he* esteemed the best. 
The fact, that not only the translators of. our Bible, but 
translators and lexicographers generally, have chosen to 
transcribe, rather than translate this word* is proof Gondii 
sive that they have not considered it as uniformly implying 
immersion. ^ 

There are three sources from which light may be gain- 
ed, in regard to the signification of disputed terms, viz* 
etymology, authority, and general use* 

It is certain, from the etymology of the Greek word 
P«7rJ/£«, that it does not uniformly denote immersion. It 
is confessedly a derivative from the word j3«ir1». This lat- 
ter does not always signify immerse. The learned author 
of Letters addressed to Bishop Ho a dley in defence of An- 
abaptist principles, expresslv concedes, " that jWfo signi- 
fies to sprinkle" and that it " is not used in the Septua- 
gint in any one place, where the very frequent ceremony 
of washing the whole body occurs."* — It is evidently 
used in the Septuagint in a number of places, where it can- . 
not denote immersion. 

* Letters, pp. 27, 28. 



•j 



,Lktr,.xiv. & w As for the living bird, he (the priest) 
stiall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the 
hyssop, and shall (fair*) tinge them ih the blood of the 
bird that Was killed." Were all these articles immersed vx 
die blood of one dead bird ? 

EzfcK. xxiii. 14, 15. 4i When she saw- — --the images 
of the Chaldeans-* — exceeding in dyed (woqa&xTri*) attire 
upon their heads," 8cc* Are not the ideas of dying, and of 
immersion* perfectly distinct ? 

Dan. v. 21. " His body was wet (3?a?ti) with die dew 
df heafven."* Was the body of Nebuchadnezzar immers- 
ed with the dew ? Or was it not rather sprinkled with it t 

Other tJVeek writers furnish us with many instances 
therein fatfla cannot denote a total immersion. 

Homer. " The lake was tinged (jXavlib) with the pur- 
ple blood^f 

Aristophanes. ** He," Magnes, '* used the Lydiaa 
musick, and shaved his face, ((ixiflo^tm) smearing it with 
tawny washes.";]: 

AfctsToTLE speaks of a substance, which u being press- 
led (/W!«) staineth the hand."$ 

Mr. Walter quotes the following sentence from 
Serasvii'Lros' and Robertson's Lexicons. u He in- 
deed (fatfla) baptizeth the botde, but it never goeth under 
the liquid water. "t-~ I n vi ew of these examples, to which 
others might be added, how much weight can be attached 
tfe the unsupported assertions of Mr. J. that " immersion is 
as much the appropriate meaning of the Greek word {Wfo, 
as of the English word dip or immerse ;" and that " the in- 
spired penmen have used no other word beside this and its 
derivatives to convey the idea of immersion, nor have ever 
used this word in any other sense. " {P. $•) 

Mr. J. supposes that (faiflify) a the wbrd denoting bap* 
tism, is derived from the verbal of this primitive word 
(faifita) by a change in the termination which never affects 
the primary idea.** He Supposes, therefore, that faifltfya as' 
strongly implies immersion as |3»^». (Pp. 3, 4.) — We have 
proved that favlu does not always signify imfnerse* Hence, 
were we to admit the justice of this last remark, the con- 
clusion would be entirely in our favour. It would be 

* See also Job ix. 31 ; Matth. xrvr„ 23 ; Rev. xix. 13. 
t J* Rasa's Apology, p. 118. t to £vw*B*s> Candid Reaicns, fcc. p. «. 

• 3 



it 



■ i 



\ 



proved tTiat 0a*%%<*>, the word denoting baptism, did hot ft* 
iwfomily imply immersion* Very far, however, are we 
from admitting this. We db not believe that this primi- 
tive and derivative are synonymous. To suppose it, as he 
has done,* is to affect materially the first principles of lan- 
guage, Bw&'£c* is not only a derivative, but a diminutive* 
It convfeys the idea of a total immersion less strongly than 
does its primitive, flavin, tn proof of this, we cite the fol- 
lowing respectahle -authorities* 

Dr, DpDDiiiJ>ci.* "In this diminutive and derivative 
form, it (jWtfgp) jn^y signify any method of washing."f 

Dr. Sc ox t. " The word jfafifcp certainly is not synon- 
ymous to j3a7rl« ; but being a diminutive from it, may, ac- 
cording tor the analogy of the langj*age r signify to plunge in, 
w to bedew with wate'r, without any exact distinction."!: 

Dr. Re edv " B»vttfy>is ^derivative, terminating in i'£«y 
and therefore, acCorclir\g to grammarians, a diminutives^ 

Mr. C. Buck.. " The tetm favlXp is only a derivative 
from fanlhAi and consequently must be somewhat less in 

its sighification."H 

Dr. Wojbcjsst£e. u Bfc*$£« is a derivative from jWT*; 
But it is a general principle or rule in the Greek language* 
that derivatives in i$r are not limited to the original mean-' 
Ipg oi their primitives, but have uniformly, ctn extended 
7neaningJ 94 i 

*Mr. J. m a note Xp» fy does hidtea latwur to esta&lish a dfotiiictibti betweettf 
&Xv}iQ> *nd$*w}»i, u The termination i£«i" says he, "to Greek derivative*, 
imprecisely of the same import as the termination /y, to English derfoatiTes j» and 
* conveys the additional idea of touting or **«**»£ •" Accordingly he renders 
** j3ararj«, to immerse ; £WJo£ immersed ; |3«^*'§a, to i»ake immersed, to im- 
merse." — feuthereis either no distinction, or a perfectly false one. If (icurfa 
signify immerse, and 04Mr1f£» immerse, then there is no distinction 'at all. And 
to suppose that 0owflot signifies tJnmeru, and $*,it\itja make wiwfeerwrf, is to set 
n|) a distinction which has no foundation. Let as apply this rendering of p&flrft^ir 
to only one passage.. " I indeed tXaptize yoti with waters (Luke iii. 16.) ShsQ. 
we say, a lihdetd make- yv& to be immersed 'tritfr wUer F* Tide leaves undeter— 
mined, what the text determines, whether John, proposed to kimerse them luor 
self, or to cause them to be* immersed through the instrumentality of others. 

t Lee t~ vol. ii. p. 376. % Note on Matth. iii. 9. f Apology, $L 127V 

||Theol.t)ict. \rol.i.p.61. 

^Letters fd B*ld. >. T25. See also Sweat's- "Critical Investigation 6JT &ev 
Mode of Baptism ?» n a publication," says Vf, WoacttlTEi*, "replete with solid 
learning, and in whioh are exposed, in the most clear and convincmg %htj'tiie 
unsoundness and futility of the unlearned criticisms in favour of immersion,, with: 
which the age hap been deluged."' (Letters, p. te>.} 



19 

We have proved that j3*tt1» does not alwayr signify im- 
merse. We have now proved that flawKfy is a diminutive 
from it, a»d less strongly implies immersion, than does it$ 
primitive, p«^l». We have certainly proved, therefore, 
from the etymology of this word, that it cannot uniformly 
<Jeriote a total immei^m 

Let us in the next place have recourse to authority* 
£iet the testimony of the learned be adduced to prove, thaf 
baptism does not uniformly imply immersion. 

ALSTEnitrs. "The term baptism signifies both itnmer* 
sion and sprinkling, (aspersionem,) and of consequence %& 
lution."* : 

Zelenxts. "Baptism signifies dipping, and also sprint- 
Img»t 

l$EZA.°"They are rightly baptized who are baptized 
by sprinkling."^ 

J. Wick%iffe. "It matters riot whether persons are 
dipped once, or three times, or whether water were poure4 
upon their heads, "f ^ ' 

Wh i t a rk Si " The word {&*!?£« signifies not only t$ ' 
dip, but also to tinge oriwetS' % 

Mastkicht, "Baptism signifies Washing, either by 
sprinkling or dipping."} . ' '' 

I^eigh* "Baptism is such 'a kind Of washing as is by 
plunging ; and yet it is taken mpre lately for any kind of 
Washing, even wh£re there is no dipS$tig at all. ^} 

Light foot. " The application of water is of the es* 
senee of baptism ; but the application of it in this or that 
manner, speaks but a circumstance," $ 

Dr. Flatly* " Christ no where requireth dipping, but 
only baptizing; which wotd; Hesvchius, Stephanits, 
Scapula, and BubB^t/i^ those great masters of the 
Greek tongue, make good by very many instances out of 
the classick writers, importeth no more than ablution or 
wa$hmg. n $ 

Domikicus. "In baptism, there is something esseutiaJ, 
as the washing ; and something accidental, namely, the 
washing in this or the other manner."f ' 

* Encyclop. lib. xsx* sea. Hi. loc. xl t In Reed's Apology, p, J13. 

% la Reed's Apology, pp. 112, 114, ft Horse Hebraicse in M&tth. iii. 

U Contra Anabap. in P. G&AitK'e Candid Reason?, &c» p. 130u 

f pfetinpt iii.^ttsest. i. art, 7« 



• 

9 



20 

Wj rsius* "We are not to Imagine that hrunersioft is 
so necessary to baptism, that it cannot be dulyjpBerfbrmed 
bf pouripg water all over, Qr by aspersion"* v ;v 

Calvin. u Whether the person baptized be wkojly in** 
mersed, and whether thrice or or^ce, or; whether water bs 
only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance."! 

Dr. Owen* " Baptism i& any kind of washing,, whethpi 
by dipping or sprinkling"^ 

. Ilavez. "The word baptize, signifying as well to 
wash as to plung^ a person may be truly baptized that fa 
not plunged. "J 
* Dictionary of tw Bi$i,e. "To baptize. isto.sprin- 
kle or wash one's body sacrament^ly."!! 
n Qla$. " Immersion cannot be called baptism, ^ny oth- 
erwise than as it is a mode of washing with w.atQr."1T 

AiN§\yoR.TCft. " Tq b^pti^e ijs t$> wash any one m the 
sacred baptismal font* or to sprinjde (mspergere^ on, him 
the consecrated waters."** 

Dr.. Scot i. " Some <K>ntei*d that baptism always signi- 
fies immersion ; and learned rn^n who have regarded Jew*-, 
ish traditions tnore, ; than either the language, of scripture or 
the Greek idiom, are very decided in this respect. Birt 
the use of the words baptize and baptism in the New Tes- 
tament, cannot accord I with thi§, exclusive interpretation*^ \% 
* Dr. Adam Ct^Rgje* " To say that , sprinkling^ is no 

§ospel baptism, is as incorrect as to say immersion is jione* 
iich assertipns f are as unchristian as. they are uncharitable* 
-—Those who are dipped in water in the name of the-TriiK 
ity, I believe to be baptized* Those who are washed, or 
sprinkled with water i^ the ngipe of the Trinity, I believe, 
to be equally so ; and the repetition of such a baptism, I 
believe to be profane* Other^have a right to believe the, 
contrary* if they see good."JJ; 

# CBcon. Foedar. vol. iii. p. 392. t Institutes, vol. iii. p. 343, edit N. Haven* 
Jin Heb,. «.. 10. { Wodcs, vo). ii. p* 432. 

' || Edit. 1661, art. Bap. def. 3. See also Brown's and Calmk^s Diet, of Bi- 
fcle, in art. Baptism. 1T Diss, on In. Bap. p. 25. 

** English-Latin Diet in art. Bap. See also Cole's Lat Diet and Schrsve* 
mus' Lexicon Grcco-Latinum, in art. Bap. ft Comment, in Mattfar. iii. 6. 

J| Comment, in Matth. iii. 6, and Mark xyi. 1£. See also Don. Fam. Expos. 
in Acts viii. 38 ; Henry's Comment, in Rom. vi. 4 ; and Pool, in 1 Cor. x. ,2. 
The following authors I find also referred to, as testifying that immersion w not 
essential to- baptism: — Luther, Vossros, Zauchivs, He&ychius, ^udd.eui,. 
Stephanus, Scapula, Pas^ojl, Miwrxxr, fcc«. See aJUo Hopkins 1 Sjs. Divio, 
▼ol. ii. p. 304, &g. kv. 



21 ' "' "" 

This lis* of quotations need not be enlarged. What the 
authority of men can do, has been done already, in proving 
that the word denoting baptism does not uniformly signify 
immersion* 

But it will be said that Mr. J. pleads authority on his 
side. He has adduced a number of witnesses, and those 
from among the Pedobaptists themselves, to prove that im- 
mersion is essential to baptism. (Pp. 5, 6.) 

la respect to these quotations, and indeed to his quota- 
tions generally from Pedobaptist authors, we beg leave to 
submit the following reiparks* 

„ Mr. J. does not seem herein to have treated either the 
publick or his witnesses fairly. In selecting small quota- 
tions from large works, where saving clauses, qualifying 
sentences, &c. are omitted, authors may easily be made to 
speak a language which they never intended, and unfair 
impressions may be left on the publick mind. Mr. J. has 
left the impression, and we fear he designed to leave it, 
that those learned men, whose testimony he has adduced, 
really supposed immersion the only valid baptism. He 
ought to have known and to have acknowledged the con- 
trary* We certainty know* that a number of his witness- 
es, and we seriously believe that all of them, considered 
baptism perfectly valid, when performed by pouring, wash- 
ing, or. sprinkling. Mr. Booth, from whom nearly all 
the quotations of Mr, J. in this place as well as others, are 
servilely copied, particularly "desired his reader to ob- 
serve, that no inconsiderable part of these learned authors 
h#ve asserted, that the word baptism signifies pouring or 
sprinkling, a$ well as immersion, "-j: Mr. Booth's; treat* 
ment of his witnesses has been generally reprobated as un- 
fair ; but in comparison with that of Mr. J. it was candour 
itself. This latter gentleman has taken up the writings of 
the dead, separated from them sentences which they per* 
haps incautiously dropped, and then spread these before 
the world as then 1 prevailing sentiments. He has thus tor- 
tured those who can no longer speak for themselves, to ut- 
ter a language, which they never intended. If he has al- 
lowed them to declare what they considered the truth, he 
)ias not allowed them to declare what they considered the 

•Compare the authoni we h*re quoted and referred to, with those Mr, h h** 
footed, p.*. t la RE^f Apology, p, UO. 



/ 



n 

whole truth.— -With these things in view, th^ quotations of 
Mr. J. on which Jre seems to have so muck relied, have lost 
all their force. The question between him and us, is not 
whether immersion be baptism, or whether this mode be 
preferable to any other ; ^utj^jfr it essential? With united 
voice, his witnesses will answeiry no,; and thus answering^ 
they instantly desert hjm, and stand arrayed on the other side! 

Mr. J. supposes his quotations tftp mpre convincing and 
forcible,, because they have been chiefly taken froift u Pe- 
dobaptist authors.* 1 "Their concessions,** says he, ^could 
not have been influenced by attachment to their religious 
system, but; must have resulted from a conviction of tru& 
alone." j( P. 5.) With equal jystice, he* might have reason* 
ed farther. He ipight have said within himseff—'^These 
learned men, notwithstanding their concessions, persist ia 
the practice of infant baptism, and. in baptizing otherwise 
than by immersion. They must be supposed to have rea- 
sons which satisfy their minds. They must be supposed 
to have strong reasons, which their concessions do not af- 
fect. They must be supposed to consider Pedobaptist' 
principles so soMly -founded, that they can safely give up 
to us more ground than we Ijiacl Reason to anticipate. And 
are not these learned characters capable of determining 
whether their principles are solidly founded or not S^— In 
short, bad Mr* J. reasoned as far as he might have done* 
from the fact that his witnesses ar£ chiefly Fedobaptists, 
fce would have seen in this fact, hot tire weakness of their 
fortress, but presumptive evidence of its impregnable 1 
strength,* 

We,now pass to consider the import of the term &**#%*> 
as exhibited in its general use. It is certainly used f by 
writers sacred apd profane, to signify something less than 
a total immersion in water. 

PoRP^irifY mentions "a river in India, into which if an 
offender enters, pr*attempt$ to pass through it, he is im- 
mediately baptized up to his head."t * n this instance 
£airh'£» evidently cannot signify immersion. 

* The author is certain that this ifiparfc t irill correctly apply 4o«ne atlefpt.of? 
$ose whom Mr. J. has quoted (p. 28)-— he means his learned and revered iustruo 
fer, Dr. Emmons. If this distinguished divine has conceded some things which 
i>e.perhaps need not, in regard to the substitution of baptism for circumcision, hi* 
discerning mind still sees ample reasons, to justify him in the belief and practice 
«f ifaiobaptisro, ' 

t Bxv\i£tlxt pfyfi Kip&Xnr* Ste REE*'*. Apology, p. 117* 



• 



• 



* 

& 



S3 

Mr. Syce if Sam quotes the following sentence, as clew 
llvered by the oracle—" Baptize (j3a^*£*) the bottle y but 
it is not right to plunge it wholly under water."* Heie r 
3gain, faifllty cannot signify immersion. 

Origen, sjpeakiiig to the Pharisees of the wood on the 
altar, over which water was profusely poured at the com- 
mand of Elijah, (see 12 Kings xyiii. 33*) expressly says, 
that this tvodd Was baptized, f This term, then, was used 
, by OaiGEtf, one of the earliest Christian fathers, to signi- 
fy pouring. 

" It was a cotftmon expression of the ancient fathers, 
concerning the martyrs who had shed their blood in bear- 
ing witness to the Christian faith, that they were baptized 
with their own blood, "j Were they actually immersed in 
their own blood £ Or were their bodies merely tinged or 
netted with it? 

^ The apostle Paul informs us, that the whole congrega-* 
lion of Israel "were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, 
and in the sea** (1 Cor. x. 2.) If it is difficult to say how" 
these pfersons wete baptized, it is not difficult to say how. 
they -were not. The bottom of the sea was made dry 
ground before thetti, and they walked through the midst 
of it with unwetted feet. (Ex. xiv. 2 1— -29 J It is hence 
absolutely certavn> that they were not immersed jn water.—* 
Mr. J. may tell us of the propriety of " representing their 
situation? with the sea on each side, and the cloud covering 
them, as an immersion in the eloudand in the sea ;" (p. 8., 
but if he dan clearly explain how they could be immersed. 
in the fraves t while they were securely walking on dry 
ground, we shall doubtless consider him a very extraordi- 
nary writer. 

The apostle also informs us r that the service of the sanc- 
tuary under the former dispensation consisted, among 
other things, in " divers washings" or (jW/iotaw) bap- 
tisms. £Heb. ix. 10.) The mode of these baptisms is 
clearly taught in the context. He proceeds directly to 
state, that the unclean were then sprinkled with the blood 
fcf bulls and of goats; that "Moses took the blood 
of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool* 
and hyssop, and sprinkled both the hook and all the 

* la IfccrD's Apology, p. 117. t See Appw*. to Dr. Wail's Reflections on &*l»> 

% HEMJtKswA*, ia Rbsd's Apology, p. 165, 





I 

* 

people ;* and that " he likewise sprinkled with the blood, 
the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry ." ts it 
not then evident, that, by divers baptisms, the apostle in* 
tended these divers sprinklings t^ Or, if we Suppose him 
to refer to the Jewish purifications generally, some of 
Which consisted in bathing, he must have referred to their 
sprinklings as well as bathings, and must have ased the 
word baptisms to denote other modes of applying water* 
than a total immersion. 

Mr, J. replies, that w since mimefous immersions were 
prescribed in the Jewish ritual, this application of the 
word baptisms by tfje apostle Paul affords no reason for 
ascribing to it any other beside its usual import." (P. 7.) 
Is it then sufficient, Mr. J* that immersion is the usual im- 
port of the term baptism ¥ This evidently must be its in~ 
variable import, or your Anabaptist principles are without 
foundation. And does the invariable or even usual import 
df this term require us to limit, if not pervert, the apostle's 
phrase, to denote merely the immersions which the Jewish 
ritual prescribed ? To say this, is to take for granted 
What ought to be proved, and what needs art hundred fold 
stronger proof than has ever yet been given to the Chris- 
tian pub] ick. 

Mr. Judson*s treatment of this passage gives occasion 
Ifo a remark, which may be extended to his treatment of 
all those passages which he has been pleased to notice, 
' which have been thought to favour our ideas of baptism. 
His professed object in examining them is merely to show, ' 
that they do not absolutely " require him to depart from" 
What he considers " the etymological and established in- 
terpretation of the word" j3*rfM£«. (P. 6.) In pursuing 
this object, the question with him is not, What is their 
most obvious and natural meaning ? but, Can they not, w 
same wag, be so tortured and glossed, as to comport with- 
the idea that immersion alone is baptism ? 

It is said u of the Pharisees and all the Jews*" that 
■*. when they come from the market, except they wash, or 
(P**1i£<*1ft») b>? baptized, they eat not." (Mark vii. 3, 4.) 
And when a certain Pharisee had invited our Lord u to 
dine with hifti, he marvelled that he had not first washed, 
or (fCoortifftn) been baptized before dinner." (Luke xi. 38.) 
Was it a custom with all the Jews to bp immersed before 



eating? Or did the Pharisee marvel that our Lotd was 
not immersed before dinner ? — If the case does not suffi- 
ciently speak for itself, it is easy to prove all that we need 
respecting it* It is easy to prove, and from the highest 
authority, that immersions were not statedly practised be- 
fore their meals, but merely a washing of their hands* , 

Matth* xv. 2„ " Why do thy disciples transgress the 
tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands 
When they eat bread." 

MAkK viu 3. "The Pharisees and all the Jews, except 
they wash their hands oft, eat not ; folding the tradition 
of the elders." 

Maimonides* "A man shall not need to wash his 
bands as oft as he eats, if he do not go abroad, or meddle 
With business, or go to the market, or avert his mind an* 
other way ; but if he do>J\e is bound, to wash his hands as 
oft as there is need of washing."* "\ 

Dictionary or the Bible* " The Hebrews did not 
iso much as€*rf, nor even sit down to a tabte> till after they had 
washed their hands f by pouring water, from their fingers' 
ends up to their elbows."f 

Calmst. * The precise professors among the Hebrews 
washed their arms up to their elbows, when returned home 
from market, or out of the street ; fearing they had touch- 
ed some polluted thing or person,"^ 

In view of these quotations, is it not undeniably certain," 
fliat the baptisms which the Jews practised previous to 
their meals, and which the Pharisee marvelled that our Sa- 
viour should neglect, were merely a washing of the Hands ? 
And is here not sufficient evidence, that the term denoting 
baptism is used to signify something different from a-total 
immersion? 

Mr. J. indeed supposes, that it was a custom with the 
Jews to immerse themselves before eating; and in confirm* 
ation of this, he quotes Maimonides and Scalicer* 
{P. 7.) His. quotation from Maimonides is not at all to 
his purpose. The opinion of this learned Rabbi has been 
> given above* Nor is the testimony of Scalicer much 
more in point. The Evangelist says of " all the Jews/*. 



* S*e Scott, in Mark vtf. 5. 



t In art Purification. 



JDic. of Bible, in art. Baptism. See also Gtomtrt, m fNttt'i Sriopsii, in 
Itflie 4- 38 j and StAc*ih>v$*'s Hlffc *bfr, to*. *, f. 440. ■ *' ' 



^ i 



fiat, "except they be baptized, they eat not ;" while 
calicer does not intimate that dipping prevailed, ex- 
cept among "the more superstitious party This pre- 
tence, therefore, and what he has adduced td support it, 
prove nothing, unless it be the straits to which he is driv- 
en, in attempting to defend his Anabaptist principles. 

It is aTso said by the Evangelist (Mark vii. 4) that 
f 1 there be many other things which the Jews have received 
to hold, as the washing, or (j3ajr1iVf«*f ) baptisms, of cups, 
and pots, and brazen vessels, and of tables.' 9 — If it is like* 
!y that, in washing, they immersed' their small cups, is it 
at all likely that they immersed their pots and kettles, their 
brazen vessels and their tables ? Do we find this the most 
convenient method of washing such articles ? And espec- 
ially should; we, if, after the Jewish custom > we rectified at 
our meals,* and, of consequence, were obliged to construct 
our tables much larger than they* are at present?* Accord- 
ingly Pool determines, in view of the word baptism in thfe 
verse, that ** it does not always denote immersion, but 
sometimes washing only, or even sprinkling^ 
, fc The Jews derived this custom of frequently baptizing 
their domestick utensils, not from the law of Moses, but' 
€i the traditions of their elders." (See v. 5.) Hence Mr. 
Hudson's references to the law of Moses, to prove that 
these baptisms were uniformly immersions* are perfectly 
Irrelevant. • ^ 

Our blessed Redeemer, in' view of his approaching suf- 
ferings, repeatedly spoke df a baptism that awaited him. 
"I have a baptism tobe baptized with." (Luke xii. 50.) 
How was he baptizfed? Neither, I apprehend, by being 
immersed in suffering, nor by having poured on him the vi- 
als of Divine wrath. There is no necessity of giving t6 
this passage any figurative interpretation ; and a figurative 
Interpretation should never be given without manifest ne* 
cessity. " The body of. the blessed Jesus was truly and 
Hteratty baptized. He was wet and washed with his own 
tears, and sweat, and blood, when in the garden, when 
scourged, and when nailed to the cross. This was the 
baptism." And in this sense the passage furnishes deci- 
sive proof, that baptism may be performed otherwise thart 
by immersion. 

# it whicji Uantd ou W* breftt at tt$j>fr." (John no. 20.) t. Synopsis in loc 



£7 

To the instances here adduced what will Mr. J. reply? 
It certainly is incumbent on him— it is incumbent on alt 
who consider immersion essential to baptism, to show that 
in each of them immersion is clearly implied. Should on- 
ly one escape — should only one instance be found of a lite* 
nil baptism where there was no immersion, the whole Ana- 
baptist theory would be overthrown. 

Mr. J. has offered but one remark directly bearing on 
the point now before us, which has not been sufficiently 
examined already. He observes, speaking of 0*ir1t(J»— - " la 
figurative applications, this word, like all others, is proba- 
bly used with some freedom. But should a few instances 
of this kind be found, would they be sufficienUo invalidate 
the force of evidence resulting from the proper and general 
use of thd word ? What law will bind the subject, if he is 
at liberty to depart from the proper and general interpreta- 
tion of the principal term, and affix to it a signification 
which is drawn from some rare figurative application V * 
(P. 4.) — In answer to these inquiries, it will be sufficient 
to propose two or three others. In what way shall the lit- 
eral signification of a word be ascertained, if persons are 
allowed to pronounce every signification figurative, which 
does not- precisely square with their pre-conceived opin- 
ions ? Is not this the manner in which the Socinian clears 
himself of the divinity of Christ? Is not this the very 
course which the heretick and schismatick have uniformly 
followed ■? And admitting the propriety of this course, will 
it be possible, at this day, to establish any one doctrine of 
revealed religion ? 

We have now fully examined the Greek word 0Mrf»£<v» 
We have considered its etymology, adduced respectable 
authorities, and traced it in its general use. And we inva- 
riably arrive at the same conclusion— -it cannot uniformly 
signify immersion. This conclusion places another on an 
immoveable basis— immersion cannot be essential to Chris- 
tian baptism. 






Section |II, 

jPrgqf thdt Immersion is not essential to Baptism* 

4. "THE circumstances attending the instances of bap* 
tism recorded in the New Testament, plainly indicate'* 
tome other mode besides " immersion* "«~-Mr. J. adduces 
these circumstances, to show that immersion is essential* 
* John baptized in the river Jordan^ and in Enon, because - 
there was much water there. Philip and the eunuch went 
dawn both* into the water." (P. 9.) — Strange! that in ex- 
amining <( the circumstances "attending the , instances of 
baptism recorded in the New Testament," he should no- 
tice but one single instance in which baptism is allowed to 
be a Christian ordinance ! Why did he not consider the 
baptism of the three thousand, of Paul, of Cornelius, and 
the jailer, and show that the circumstances attending thes& 
plainly indicated immersion? — Let, us, however, follow 
him, and examine the baptism of John. That this great 
informer and prophet baptized at Jordan and Enon, is no 
conclusive evidence that he practised immersion. The 
convenience of those multitudes which constantly throng- 
ed him, made it necessary that he should reside in the \u 
canity of " much water." — Many circumstances of his bap* 
tism seem inconsistent with immersion, and render it near- 
ly certain that he practised some other mode. He baptiz- 
ed u in the wilderness" as well as at Jordan. (Matth, iii. 1.) 
He baptize.d with water, as well as in it, (Mark i. 8.) He , 
baptized in the open fields, where there were no accommo- 
dations for a change of apparel* And above aU-r-he bap- 
tized vast multitudes in a short space of time. None have 
computed his ministry to be more than a year and an half, 
In this period, he baptized " Jerusalem, and alljudea, and 
all the region round about Jordan." (Matth. iii. 5.) He 
baptized, on the smallest estimate we have ever yet seen, 
500,000 persons. In order to immerse these in one year 
and an half, allowing only a minute for the immersion of 
each, he must have been constantly in the water every day 4 
for more than fifteen hours. Is it credible that he should 
dp this ? Especially is it, since we are assured that he 



29 

» \ 

t 

%i did no miracle ?" (John x. 41.) Is it credible, then, that 
In ordinary cases John baptized by immersion ?* 

Mr. J, has also noticed the circumstances of the eu- 
nuch's baptism. . Suppose we at once grant that the eu- 
nuch was immersed. This would be merely granting that 
immersion is baptism-*-** point which we neither need, nog 
wish, to call in question. We, however, see no reason to 
suppose that the eunuch was immersed. No circumstance 
indicates it, except it is said that both he and Philip went 
down into, or (&) to, the water ; and aftertoards came up 
out of, or (U)Jrom it. (Acts viii. 38.) And these they 
might, and probably would have done, had the eunuch 
been sprinkled.f 

The baptism of the three thousand next claims our at- 
tention. The scriptures afford us not a single incident, 
that would lead to the conclusion that this multitude were 
immersed. On the contrary, they furnish many circum- 
stances which indicate the necessity of some other mode. 
The occasion was unexpected ; the multitude were prin- 
cipally strangers, and had made no previous preparation 
for a change of garments ; they were in Jerusalem, " twen-, 
ty miles from Jordan and Enon ;" no pubiick baths bad 
been engaged, or could be, as the whole city was violently 
opposed to the Christians ; no mention is made of their 
leaving the place, not even the house where theV were as- 
sembled ; and above all — the time was short* The apos- 
tles came together at <€ the third hour," or niije o'clock. 
Besides the discourse of which we have an epitome in the 
Acts, it is said they " testified and exhorted with many 
other words" (Acts ii. 4Q.) *Three thousand were awa- 
kened, convinced, converted, professed their faith in Christ, 
and concluded to be baptized. All these transactions 
could not possibly have passed in less than four hours. 
Five hours now remained } and three thousand were to be 
baptized by twelve men. Could they be immersed ? Bat- 
ing the time which must unavoidably elapse in repairing 
to the water, and making the necessary preparations ; were 
each of the apostles to be constandy employed, but a trifle 
more than a minute could be allotted for the immersion of 
each.*— In order to avoid these difficulties, Mr. J. observes, 

* See Chaplijt on the Sacraments, pp. 111—118. 
t See fjETOT's Commentary on the place. 



30 

in the first place, it is not recorded that the three thousand 
*• were baptized the same day, but that they were added 
to the disciples." (P. 7.) It is recorded that " they who 
gladly received, the word wete baptized." (Acts ii. 41.) 
And were any added to the disciples who did not " gladly 
receive the word ?" If not, none were added to the disci- 
ples who were not baptized. — He farther suggests, that, 
were they all baptized the same day, it would not be im- 
possible for the twelve, assisted by the seventy, and per- 
naps by the hundred and twenty, to administer the. ordi- 
nance by immersion. (P, 7.) Were, then, the whole hun- 
dred and twenty, females as well as males, officially quali- 
fied to administer baptism ?«*-lThe whole chapter makes it 
evident, that none wefe employed in this matter but the 
twelve apostles. When Peter lifted up his voice and 
greached, it is said he stood up " with the eleven" (Acta 
ii. 14.) And when the multitude " were pricked in their 
heart," they sought for direction " to {*&&, and the rest 
i>f the apostles." (V. 37.*) There cannot, therefore, re, 
main a doubt, that the three thousand were baptized the 
same day they believed, and by the hands of the twelve 
apostles. They were undoubtedly baptized in the houses 
where they first assembled, and probably by affusion ot 
Sprinkling.^ 

In^he baptism of Paul, nothing looks like immersion^ j 
but every circumstance appears against it. He had been 
three days in Damascus, " without sight, and neither ate 
nor drank." (Acts ix. 9.) Ananias comes in, and salutes 
him as a Christian brother. Immediately he rises up, and 
receives the ordinance of baptism. And after baptism* 
" when he had received meat, he was strengthened." He 
does not repair to a river or a bath, or even leave the room \ 
* nor is it likely that in his weak state he was able to leave 
it ; but there he rises up, and is baptised.*— With the pre- 
cise mode of Paul's baptism we do not pretend to be ac- 
quainted ; but we do suppose it almost demonstrably cer-. 
tain, that he was not immersed. 

The instance of Cornelius and his family is equally con- 
vincing. They believed, on the preaching of Peter ; the 

* Compare Acts i. 26, with ii. 1. See also ii. 42, 43. 

tWiTSius 1 CEcon. of Cot. vol. iii. p. 392. See also Reed's Apology, pp< 
£15—219 ; and DrW. Scott, in Acts ii. 41. i 



t 



*i 



•• 



Holy Ghost fell on them ; and the astonished apostle* pa?* 
ceiving the event, exclaimed—- " Can any man forbid tya- 
ter, that these should not be baptized, who have received 
the Holy Ghost, as well as we ?" (Acts x. 47.) " Can 
any man forbid water"— \. e. that it should be brought f 
" Is not this the most natural and obvious meaning — ail 
idea which the form <rf words and mode of expression in- 
stantly and fully excite in our minds f Accordingly there 
is no hint of their going abroad, or of any other prepara- 
tion in order to baptism, than that of bringing a htde wa- 
ter into the room* The history leads us to believe that 
they were baptized, at the very juncture when Peter com- 
manded it, and in the very apartment where they were 
then assembled."* 

The circumstances of the jailer's baptism prove as coit* 
cliisively as evidence of this nature will admit, that he and 
Ibis family were not immersed. " They were baptized at 
home, at midnight, and at the very same hour in which 
they believed."f (Acts xvi. 33.) We have abundant rea- 
son to suppose, that during the whole transaction, Paul 
knd Silas never left their prison. They would not le^ve it 
the succeeding day, till those who had unjustly apprehend- 
ed and beat them, came and honourably brought them 
tout. Shall it be believed, then, that they left it m a clan- 
destine manner the night before, regardless of the very^ 
Strict diarge the jailer had received to keep them safely, 
and this, too, at a moment when every one was awake, and 
the whole city had been roused and terrified with ah earth- 
quake ? Shall it be supposed that in their bruised and dis« 
tressed condition of body, they exposed themselves to the 
dangers and the damps of night, and went abroad, and ink 
to the water, for the purpose of immersion ? The thing i& 
absolutely incredible4— -Accordingly Mr. J. does not even 
pretend^ that Paul and Silas went out of the prison. His 
theory is, that the prison was furnished With a bathing 
place, or " tank of water.'' (P. 7.) If the Spirit of God 
had informed us that there was in this prison a collection ' 
of water, sufficiently large, and in perfect preparation, for 
the immersion of a whole family, we should doubtless 

♦Dr. Osgood. See also Don, Fam. Expos, on Acts x„ 47; and White* Ul 
loc t Dr. Lathrop's Discourses, p. 21. 

J See Flayel's Works, ?ol. ii. p. 432 ; sad Dr. J. Scott, in Ac&xtf. 3& 



** *" 



.* 82 

have believed it. But Mr. h will excuse us if We do not 
feel the force of his conclusion, because the yard of the 
prison itt Calcutta, and (as he says) the "prison yards in 
the east> afc Well as the yards and gardens of privatehouses, 
are usually, 1 ' at the present time, " furnished with tanks of 
water," that therefore there was* more than seventeen hun- 
dred years ago* such a Collection of *water in the prison at 
Philippi. Nothing, in short, can b£ more unfounded* than 
the idea that the^ailer and his family were immersed in 
prison. 

We have now examined the circumstances of some of 
the principal instances of baptism recorded in the New 
Testament* and we are greatly mistaken, if they do not 
clearly indicate sopie other mode besides immersion, 

5. Immersion was never considered essential to bap* 
tism> till the appearance of the Anabaptists, in the sixteenth 
century* That imiiiersions have been practised in every 
age of the Christian church, and that they have been more 
generally practised at some former periods, than they at 
present are among the Congregationahsts of New- England, 
I see no reason to deny. Nor do I see any reason to 
doubt, that they have more generally prevailed at some 
former periods, than they did in the days and under the 
ministry of the apostles. Persons have not unfrequently 
been ready to overdo in the externals of religion, while 
they have done litde or nothing in respect to religion it- 
self. The Pharisees, not satisfied with the yoke of the 
ceremonial law, must add to it " the traditions of the eld- 
ersir" Peter, not satisfied with that degree of washing 
which his Master saw was proper, declaimed— " Not my 
Feet only, but also my hands and my head." (John xiii. 9.) 
And some Christians in past ages, not satisfied to be bap- 
tized by affusion or sprinkling, which is as much as their Sa- 
viour requires, must be plunged completely under water. 
Yea, in some periods of the church, persons have not been 
satisfied even with this. They must be immersed three 
times. They must be immersed naked. They must 
have water applied to their faces subsequent to immer- 
sion. They must be attired in white for a certain 
number of days afterwards, in token of theim purity.* 

•See Wsfsitos' CEcon. of Gov. vol. iii, p. 394; Vossiv*' Diepnt i. de Biap. th* 
9 ; Dr. Lathe's Vis. on Bap. p. S3 \ Dr. Rftttft Apol. p» 80 j J VMon'fi 9tf* 
mon, p. 15% 




- "T- 



$3 

Tfibese facts 3fe adduced, to show the propensity there 
fe in man to perform more than is needful in the ex- 
ternals of religion. It is owing to this propensity, that im- 
mersions have, in some ages, more generally prevailed 
than they did under the ministry of Christ and his apos* 
ties. 

We prdpose it, however, as an indubitable fact, that im- 
mersion never has been considered essential to baptism, 
till within a few centuries of the present time. We say 
essential; for this, it will b£ recollected, is the precise 
point in dispute. We freety admit that immersion is bap- 
tism. We admit it is a mode which has been more or less 
practised* perhaps in every period of Christianity. We 
are perfectly willing Mr. J. if he pleases, should prefer 
this mode to all others. But We are not willing he should 
make it essential. We are not willing he should nullify 
eVery other mode. We are not willing he should re-bap- 
tize those to whom Water hatfbeen onde apptiejd in the name* 
df the Trinity. ^ 

That immersion was not deemed essential to the ordi- 
nance in the early ages of the church, appears from those 
Very quotations which Mr. I. has made to prove, the con* 
tfary.— -It is a self-evident truth, that when that Which is 
essential to a thing is wanting, the thing ceases to exist* 
Remove roundness from a ball, and it is no longer a ball. 
Remove hardness from a stone, and it is no longer a stone* 
And, on the same principle, if immersion is essential to 
baptism, where there is no immersion, there is no baptism. 
Accordingly, if the primitive Christians had considered 
immersion essential to baptism, when they could fiot have 
practised immersion, they would have practised nothings 
Did they pursue this course ? Never-*- if We may credit 
the Witnesses of Mir. J. He quotes Vene^a, where, 
speaking of the third and fourth centuries, he says, " as- 
persion was used in the last moments of life ; where there 
was not a sufficient quantity of water;" and €i in cases of 
necessity. *' He quotes Sal ma si its, testifying that M per-, 
sons confined to their beds were baptised in a manner of 
which they were Capable ; the whole body had water pour- 
ed upon it.'* (P. 12.) Here is tonclusive proof that the v 
primitive Christians did not consider immersion essential 
to baptism* 

$ 



*r 



po 

hit 



34 

But, says Mr. J. "those who were thus baptized £y 

taring, were called clinicks, not Christians, and were pro* 
ubited the priesthood." (P. 10.) Those who were bap- 
tized on their beds in sickness were called clinicks, from 1 
the Greek, xXwi, a bed; but was this inconsistent with 
their being called Christians? Nov a ti an was called a 
clinick ; was he not also called a Christian ? Gould he be 
bishop of Home, the first 'Christian church, and not be 
Galled a Christian ? — But the clinicks were afterwards ca- 
nonically prohibited the priesthood. Why f Mr. J. ha9 
not explicitly answered this question ; though he is care- 
ful we should understand it was because they had not been 
immersed* He certainly had the means of being better in- 
formed* The reason why they were prohibited the priest- 
hood was, their sincerity was questioned. They had not 
made that open profession which was deemed necessary. 
They had not gone forth in face of a persecuting world, 
and taken upon them the Christian name. "Baptism, in 
that age of the world, exposed persons to the most dread- 
ful persecutions ; especially if they undertook the work of 
the gospel ministry. If, therefore, any person neglected 
baptism until visited with sickness, this neglect of duty 
Tendered his character liable to suspicion." Accordingly 
the coungil of Ncoctesarea decreed the following, viz. " He 
who is baptized when sick, ought not to be made a priest ; 
Jbr his coming to the faith is not voluntary, but from ne- 
cessity; unless his diligence and fidelity do afterwards 
prove commendable, or the scarcity of men fit for the of- 
fice do require it,"* 

I can find no evidence that either the lawfulness or va- 
lidity of clinick baptism was ever disputed. The case of 
the clinicks, therefore, and the sum of the quotations we 
have adopted from Mr. J. instead of proving,- what he in- 
tended, that immersion was in primitive times considered 
essential to baptism,: meontestably prove the contrary.' 

Mr. J. has the following quotation from Bishop Tay- 
lor. 0?. 12.) "It was a formal and solemn question 
made by Magnus to Cyprian, whether they aFe to be 
esteemed right Christians, who were only sprinkled with 
water, and not washed or dipped."— *It was no question, 
then,, in the early days of Magnus and Cyprian, wheth- 

*Ia RjNOft Apology,' j>. 245. 



as 

<er toaahingbe a lawful and valid mode of baptism. A»d 
why was it a question whether those should be esteemed 
right Christians who were only sprinkled with water, un- 
less there were persons then who claimed to be esteemed 
tight Christians, who had been baptized by sprinkling ?— 
But let us hear the answer of Cypbian, as also quoted by 
Mr. J. (Pi 12.) " In the saving sacraments, when neces- 
sity obliges, and God grants his indulgence, (dwina com*? 
pendvaj the shortest ways pf transacting divine matters* 
confer the whole on believers."— Had we no other parts 
pf Cyprjan's answer but this single sentence, we coukl 
scarcely wish for a mpre formal declaration, that he did not 
-consider immersion essential. Happily, however, we hav£ 
more of his answer at hand. " I would use," says he, " sq 
much modesty and humility, as not to prescribe so posfc 
tively, but that every one should have the freedom of his 
own thoughts, and do as he thinks best For the conta- 

f" ion of sin is not, in the sacrament of salvation, washed ofi, 
y the same measures as the dirt of the skin and of the 
body is washed awav* There is no necessity of soap, or 
of a large pool, or fish-pond. It is in another way that the 
breast of a belieyer is washed ; after another manner that 
the mind of man is by faith cleansed." Here follows the 
sentence which Mr. J. has quoted. Cypriak afterwards 
proceeds to argue in favour of aspersion, by quoting an$ 
applying/ these words of the prophet : " I will sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ys shall be clean."f (Ezek* 
xxxyi. 25. )- — -After this account of the matter, Mr. J. is 
welcome to every advantage he can possibly derive from 
the testimony of this learned father. And it ought to be 
noticed, that Cyprian is nearly the only author of any- 
considerable antiquity^ whom he has quoted in this part 
of, his work. 

Hitherto we have examined the subject chiefly bjr the 
help of Mr. J ud son's quotations. We have proved that 
immersion was not, in the primitive $ges, deemed essen- 
tial, by those very \vltne5ses whom he has adduced to 
prove the contrary. 

The following facts and testimonies will place this truth 
in (if possible) a Still n>dre clear and convincing light. 

* This is the translation adopted by Doctors Lathrop and Reed, 

t In Reed's Apology, p. 245, ♦ 

J CyPBUN flourished within 150 vears of the ajpojstolick age. 



*St. LawrSi* ce, a little while before he suffered, bap* 
tteed with a pitcher of water one of his executioners,"* 

"Nov ati an became a Christian about one # hundred 
years after the apostles ; aqd when visited with sickness,, 
baptism was administered to him, according to the Custom 
of those times, by affusion or sprinklings"! 

"Basjudes is also mentioned by Eu§EBius,aa hav- 
ing been baptized ki prison. "£ 

Constantin e the Great, '* being clothed with a white 
garment, and kid upon his bed, was baptized ma solemn 
manner by EtrsEBitrs, Bishop of Nicomedia."& 
, /The Avthor of Letters to Bishop Hcud ley,, a learned 
and professed Baptist, admits that u for thirteen hundred 
years successively after the apostles, sprinkling was perv 
jnitted upon extraordinary occasions."(| 

Z'Eipus. " Dipping was formerly more used* espeq- 
Ially in the hot countries of Judea ; but this mode was not 
universally practised, or essential to the ordinance of bap-. 
tism."J 

Z a n c h i tj s. u As in a matter of liberty and indifferencyy 
the church sometimes followed one ceremony, and some-, 
times the other, as she judged most expedient."^ 

Calvin. "Nothing of the substance of baptism is 
wanting, while the symbol of water is made use of, for the 
ends which Christ hath appointed. The substance being 
retained, the church from the beginning enjoyed a liberty 
pf using somewhat different rites."% 

Dr. Waei. "In extraordinary occasions, baptism by 
qffhsion of water on the Jhce was by the ancients counted, 
sufficient baptism." Of this, he says, there are " many- 
proofs."—" In the fifth century, baptism was administered 
in France indifferently, by immersion and aspersion"^ 

," E*STitfs, referring tQ times long before the year thhv 
teen hundred, withesseth that the ceremouy of pouring on 
water had been much in #$*."** 

BoNAVENTijitE, who was bom about the year twelve 
hundred, " saith that in hifr time pouring was much ob* 
served in, the French churches and son^e others."** 

' * Wall's Hist. Inf. ?ap. vol. ii. p. 356< t Ibid* pp. 353 and 357. 

% In R££i>'s Apology, pp*. 243, 113, and 240, 
\ Dupvff's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii, p. 84 ; also, Millars IJist. of Prop, of Chris. %d± 
u p. 392. Other instances may be seen in AittfDii Lex. Antiq. Eccles. p. 66. 

tl Plain Account, &c. p. 16. 
1 III ? % CLAEEVScrip. Ground of Inf. Bap. j\ 158.. ** Ibid! p. i£9.' 



. — H 



37 

Dr. 'Doddridge, speaking of tfie primitive ag$s, says* 
" I suppose immersion was often, though not constantly y 
used. ? '* 

Pres. Wili,ard. "Though in the primitive times the 
ceremony of immersion was the most frequently u$ed, yet 
in the colder regions where tfriigion was entertained, they 
used aspersion^ 

Dn Reed. " We do know that dipping and sprinlding 
Were both practised in the second century ; and each prac- 
tice hath been continued from that period to the present 
time/'J 

Dr. L athrop. " So far as die practice of the ancients 
is of weight, it proves all that we contend fpr. We don't 
say that immersion is unlawful, or a mere nullity. We 
say it is not necessary; that affusion is sufficient; and so 
said the ancient church "§ 

In view of these authorities, the ptiblick will be able to 
judge of the opinion and practice of the primitive saints, 
in respect to baptism. That they frequently baptised by 
immersion, we see no reason to doubt; but that they ever 
considered this mode essential, we, positively deny. In 
short, we have no account that immersion was, in any age/ 
or by any sect, supposed essential to baptism, till the ap- 
pearance of the Anabaptists in the sixteenth centtiry.){ 
We may safely conclude, therefore, that such an opinion 
in respect tp this ordinance, is not conformable to the 
scriptures of truth, 

Mr. J. has but two arguments in favour of exclusive 
immersion, which have not already been considered, and, 
it is believed, refuted. " The idea of immersion," says he, 
"is the only one which will suit all the various connexions 
in which the word** denoting baptism "is used in the New 
Testament. "IT (P- 9.) — WU1 the idea erf immersion suit aft 

* Fan*.. Expos, on. 1 Cor, i« 16% t Lectures on Catechism, p. 846* 

$ Apol. for Inf. Bap. p. 239. A work which we cap heartily recommend, an£ 
to which we acknowledge ourselves deeply indebted. 

♦ Discourses oo Bap. p. 23. See flfso Pod. Fam. Expos, on Acts viii. S5 ; 
Scott's Comment, on Matth. ii. 6, and Rom. vk 4 ; Lightfoot's Horse Hebra* 
*ae, in Matth. in. ; Dr. A, G&AUJfi's Comment, on Mark xvi. 16 ; Hor. Sja, 
Div. vol. ii. p. 304. , 

|| See Dr. Worcester's Letters to Dr. Baldwin, p. 123. 

1T A considerable pari of what Mr. J. has offered under this, his fifth particular* 
is taken verbatim from Booth's Pedobaptism Examined, £ee chap. ii. pp. 37* 
39, He ought to feifcre quoted, and given him credit. ... 



38 

1 i 

these various connexions ? Take buf a single instance. 
"John indeed bajptized with water." (iCagriiro 9 v9&. Acts 
i. 5.) Is it less improper to speak of an immersion with 
water, than of a sprinkling or washing in it ?- In this ar- 
gument it is taken for granted^ that the word <f used to 
fienote the ordinance of baj^ism has one uniform meaning ; 
which is applicable in every instance," (P. 9.) But this 
proposition really needs proof. It is the very point in dis- 
pute. We do not believe that the word denoting " hap* 
tism has one uniform meaning which is applicable in every 
instance." We do not believe, in other terms, that there 
js but Qfte valid mfide qf beptism. The idea of wetting, 
without doubt, enters constantly into the literal meaning of 
this word.; but persons may be wetted in different modes, 
and in each be equally baptized^-^-There is probably no 
one word, " which will suit all the various connexions in 
which the word denoting baptism is used in the New Tes- 
tament." This fact should convince us, that no precise 
mode of applying water has been enjoined, or is essential 
to the ordinance, 

Mr. J. adduces the practice of the Greek church, " who 
certainly understand their native language better than for* 
etgners," as proof that immersion is essential to baptism. 
(P # 9.)— The signification of words varies with every age. 
This remark is so common, and so obviously true, that in* 
stances to justify it need not be adduced. The word 
fMtfy* may not convey precisely the same idea to a mod- 
ern Greek, that it conveyed in the days of Homer or of 
Paul. While, therefore, it is true, that the Greeks " un- 
derstand their native language better than foreigners,' 5 it 
may not be true that they better understand the meaning 
of this word, as used by the writers of tfoe New Testa- 
ment. 

But we deny that the Greeks consider immersion essen* 
tial to baptism. Probably this is the mode in which they 
usually administer the ordinance ; but they frequendy ad- 
minister it in otjier modes.* This is proved from those 
very quotations which Mr. J. has made to disprove it. 
He has brought in Dr. Wall, who testifies that "they 
hardly count a child, except in case of sickness, well bap- 
tized without immersion." (P. 10.) This necessarily iro- 

* See P, Clark's Scrip. Gjroufcd* of Inf. Bap, p. 126, 



3d- 

plies, that in cases of sickness* if not in others, they do 

count their children "well baptized?* though they have 

not been immersed* It implies, therefore, that in their o* 

pinion immersion is not essential; and this is all for which 

we contend. 

. We conclude this part of out Treatise with two obvious 

deductions. 

1. If immersion is not essential to baptism, then for any 
to be re-baptized because they have not been immersed, 
is altogether unjustifiable. Baptism is now the seal of 
God's immutable covenant. Wherever it has been ad- 
ministered, it implies that God has promised. Hence the 
virtual language of a second baptism is—-" We will not be* 
Iteve our Maket^ unless he vtill promise a second time." 

We do not charge all who have been re-baptized with 
this impiety. Their palliation is, they have done it igflo- 
rantly. 

2. If immersion is not essential to baptism, then for 
those churches who practise immersion to refuse ctonfftu* 
nion with those who do not, is altogether unjustifiable* 
Alas ! what dissensions among brethren— ^what schisms in 
the church—what rents m the seamless coat of Christ— <* 
ha Vie been occasioned by this bar- and bone of contention, 
the principles of close communion I Blessed Redeemer ! 
Is not the period at hand, when the members of thine own 
bodv shall no longer be torn asunder ; * and when the chil- 
dren of thine own house shall be willing to sit down to- 
gether, at the same table and feast of love ! 



£NI> OF PART I* 



PART II. 



0» the Proper Subjects of ChmtiaA Baptist** 



iNTRODUCHotf. 

THERE is unhappily a difference Of opinbft between. 
ui and the Baptist brethren, in respect not only tq the 
mode, but the subjects of Christian baptism. It is impor- 
tant, in the very commencement of the present discussion* % 
that this pqfcit of difference should be precisely understood, 
li is not, whether unbaptized adults, who give no ev* 
itfence. of faith, are proper subjects of the ordinance. 
We agree with them that they are not. Hence we agree, 
with them in admitting the fuU force of those precepts 
\yhich enjoin repentance and faith on adults, in order to 
baptism. Neither is it, whether those unbaptized adults , 
who give evidence of faith are proper subjects. We agree 
with them that they are. The sole point of difference be- 
tvveenusand them, in respect to the proper subjects of 
baptism, is this-^^e affirm, and they deny* that those 
children xvho are under the care qf believing, covenanting 
parents, should be baptized* 

To establish and defend what ishere affirmed, is our 
principal object in the ensuing remarks.— It will be nee* 
essary, in some of the first sections* to attend to subjects 
that hrvve rather an indirect, .though an important, bearing 
on the point under consideration. We claim herein the . 
indulgence of the Christian publick. 

* It wiS perhaps be said, that we differ from the Baptists in another important 
point. They affirm, and we deny, that those believers who have beent>aptiztdir± 
nifaTuy, should bt re-baptieed. But why do they affirm that such should be re* 
baptized ? Because they consider infant baptism wrong. And why do we deny 
that such should be re-baptized ? Because we consider infant baptism right. *f he 
difference, therefore, respects infant baptism only : and the point is left precisely 
«* We have stated it above. 



Section t« 

The Visible Church of Christ the same, undei every dig* 

pensatio% and in every age. 

u Mj Dove, my tuulefiled » but bile % tha is the dnly otic of heir Mbthef." 

Cawt* vt« 3* 

1* THE identity of the &*&&& church of Christ, in eve* 
ty period of the world, may be argued from the identity 
laid perpetuity of the feed church*— As a visible saint is 
one who appears to be a real saint/ so the visible church, 
in its most extended sense, is a body which appears to be 
the real church of Christ. Cant we, then, conceive of two 
distinct visible churches, while we admit the identity and 
perpetuity of the real church ? Irt other words, can we 
conceive of two bodies visibly distinct, which yet appear 
to be the same f»— It is manifest, from the absurdity of 
such a supposition, that if the real church has been the 
same iniali periods of the world, this must be true also of 
the visible church* 

& The visible church has ever been the'same, since it 
las ever been a gospel chtirch. That the visible church is' 
at present on a gospel foundation, heed not be proved. 
And that the church of Israel stood on the same founda- 
tion* is as certain as that it was in any sense a church of 
God- For why should God separate any people from the 
w&rld to be his church, and not place them on a gospel 
foundation, unless it were to damn them ? But if the visi-;' 
trie church has ever been a gospel church, has it not ever ~ 
been essentially die same ? 

8* The visible church, urtder both dispensations, has 
been fcquaDy the church of Christ. Under both, it is rep- * 
resented as the bride of. Christ. f Must it not, then, be the 
same, under both ? Or did our adored Redeemer, " on his 
publick appearance, cast off his anciently beloved Zion, ' 



*v, « awn*) owl ne aemes ui&i uus is inc same bouj ob u« 

4er tjte present dispensation. (P* 38.) Here, then, are two distintt lUfifit 
ttarcAet / or two bodies visibly distinct^ which yet appear tp £e the *w* L. 

t Jet. i2, U; Her. *& x ?* 

6 , 



«* 



42 . 

t 

AotwithstamTing her elevated hopes and jcyful songs, ami 
notwithstanding his solemn protestations that he would 
taever forsake her, and take to himself another bride ?" 

It is represented, under both, as the house of Christ* 
That -same Jesus, u whose house are we" as Christian pro- 
fessors/ builded and possessed that house or church m 
which "Moses, as a servant, was faithful." (Heb« m. 2—6*} 

It is represented* under both, as the flock of Christ. 
He who is now styled " the great Shepherd of the *heep>" 
is spoken- of in the Psalms as " the Shepherd of Israel,"* 
, Indeed it is represented* under both, as the property of 
Christ* The same glorious Pezsooage who hath " bought 
us with a ptieef* when he appeared in the church of Isra- 
el, fe said to have € « come to his <w*."t 
: But if the visible church, under both dispensations, has 
been equally the church of Christ, has it not been, under 
both, the same ? ; . , 

4. The visible church, , under both dispensations, has 
professed the same reiigion.-i-h, will not be questioned that 
the Jewish brethren were professors of religion. Nor will 
it be questioned that they professed the true reRgi&n, which 
God gave them. % " Thou hast avouched the Lord this 
day," says Moses, " to be thy God, to walk in Us ways, 
to keep his commandments, and to hearken to his voice." 
(DetfL xxvi. 17.) I ask, then, has not true religion beeh 
invariably the same? Has there, since the fall, been more 
thdh tme way from earth to heaven ? If, then, the church, 
under bath dispensations, has professed the* true religion 
has it not, under both* professed the same religion? 
Hence, has it not, under both, been essentially the same 
church ? 

£• The visible church has been constantly subject to es- 
sentially die same requirements* As God now require* 
hi* people to be holy, for he is holy ; so he anciently re- 
quired the same. " Ye shall be holy* for I the Lord your 
God am holy^'J As he now requires his people to love: 
him with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength ; so he an- 
ciently required the same. " Thou shalt love the Lord 

*P*. kxx. 2 ; Heb* *iii. 20. t John j. 11 ; 1 Ctt. ?k $6* 

% Mr. J. eoftcedei -tfiat " the Jews, as a natitra, professed to test \a Ofcftt** 
(P. 29.) Dr. Baldwin doe* ttesaa*; . Stite his works on Baptism, pp. 240 and 
242. { 1 Pet. i. 16 ; Lev. xte. 2* . • " 



i 



* I 



4* ' ■ 

thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy son!, anE with 
all thy might."* Ashe now requires 1 his people to be* 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, so he anciently' required 
thfe same. Else why were the Jews ait <>ff for unbelief • 
(Ram. xi; 20.) As he now requires his people to "do 
good to all," shuft every vice, ana u love their neighbour as 
themselves ;" so he anciently required the same. ** Thou 
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Do justice, love mer- 
cy, and walk humbly with thy God."f 

Let us here stop one moment, to consider same of Mr; 
Jtrri son's assertions respecting the qualifications for mem* 
bership in the church of IsraeL 4 * To be descendad fronj, 
Abraham," says he, ** in* the line of Isaac and Jacob, was 
sufficient to introduce the subject into diis church." (P.* 
30.) — If it was sufficient to intrpduce him, it was not "suf- 
ficient to continue him there. The Jews were not broken 
off because they were not the 4i descendants of Abraham, ia 
the line of Isaac and Jafcob;" but u because of their unbe- 
lief.'* — " Persons Qf Gentile extraction,** hp adds, u whd 
were purchased by Jews, or wished to enjoy the privileges 
of Jews, could be introduced into this church by circrim-t 
cisiori. Whether any other requisite 'to admission was ap* 
jointed by God, we are not informed: w {P. 30.) — Doe^ 
Mr. J: believe that a Philjfctirte, fbr instance, who coirtkiup^ 
'* professed worshipper of Dag<m % could beconiiQ-fa regular 
member of that church which, he admits, ^tbjbssed id 
rest in Christ?* merely by receiving the external mark of 
^ircumcisiori?— In a wpfd, the visibly church- has beeit 
subject to essentially the s^me requirements, under botH 
'dispensations. Is not this good evidence that it has evei* 
been the same? ; ' * /' ' 

6. Essentially Jihe sarhe promises wetfetnafle to^he Visi-( 

ble church under the ; former ^dispensation, which are made 

to it now.-^Gud now. promises his people all needful t§m~ 

parol blessings; and to bis ancient eov^aaut people he 

Eromised the same. % He now promises his church th*# 
e will never leave her* or cease to be her God ; apd tq 
the church of Israel he promised the same, * Fear thou 
not, for I am with thee; be not dismay ecj, for I am tliy 
<^od.^^ He now promises to preserve and defend his 

4 - • 

# Maik^..30 ; I?***. vi. $. t Mark jui. 31 ; Lev. xix. J$; Mic. vi. 8. 
JMattfc.Ti.33i J**, »i 3*-fc {Jdatf2uift*)ii.20; Kev. *si.7;~ Is.*li, 6. 






rw 



* 44 

church ; and urfder the former dispensation he promised 
the same. " The Lord of hosts will defend Jerusalem* 
and passing over, he will preserve it."* He promises tm 
build up the present visible church ; and to the church of 
Israel he promised the same*. " I will build thee, and thou 
shalt be built, O virgin of Israel ! I have loved thee with 
an everlasting love."f He has promised to give the king- 
dom to his little flock under the gospel ; and to his ancient 
Zion he promised the same. " Kings shall be thy nursing 
fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers ;" and " the na- 
tion and # kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish.":}:— 
Is it possible that the subjects of such similar promises 
should be perfectly distbet ? 

7. The church, under both dispensations, has been sub- 
ject to similar discipline* The direction of Christ now is— 
" If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell 'him his 
fault." Formerly it was—" Thou shalt not hate thy 
^ brother in thine heart ; thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy* 
neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him."$ The direction 
of Christ now is—" If thy brother repent, forgive him."* 
formerly it was— " When the offender shall bring his sin- 
offering, and in, token of repentance lay his hand upon its 
head, the victim shall be slain, and he shall be forgiv.en."} 
The direction of Christ now is— u If the offender will not 
Jiear the church, but continues presumptuously obstinate, 
"let him be cut oft and become to you as an heathen." 
Formerly it was-—" The soul that doeth aughfe presumptu* 
oqsly, and will not hearken to the priest, nor to the judge, 
the same hath reproached the Lord, and that soul shall be 
cut off from his people x "1T— Does not this similarity of dis- 
cipline under both dispensations very dearly indicate that, 
the church has been essentially the same ? 

1 *$ *Theu. Hi. 3 ; Matth. xvi. 18 ; Is. xxxL 5. t Acts xv. 16 ; Jcf. xxxL 3,4. . 

■ 

J Luke xH. 32 ; Is. xlix. 23, and be. Id. The apostle Paul frequently quote* 
the promises made io the ancient church, and applies them to the Christian ' 
• church. See particularly 2 Cor* vi. 16—18, and vn. 1. Harm? quoted, in the 
last of the sixth chapter here referred to, -some of the promises made to the anftfanfc 
church, he begins the seventh by Baying*-" Having, therefore, these promises, \ef 
iw cleanse, ourselves," Jce% How could he represent the Corinthian church as 
hating these promises, and as being under consequent obligations to cleanse them- 
•elves, unless he considered them the saine body with the ancient church, to 
Which these promises were made ? 

i Afatth. «vni. 15 ; Lev. xix. 17. |)Luke xvii. 3 1 JU*.*?. 

t Matth. XTiii. #* Numb.xr. 30> DeutxtiS. l& "V ' . 



J 



49 

8« The e&urch, both before and after Christ, has used, 
in some respects, the same forms of ivorship. We refer* 
particularly to the Psalms; .'These were anciently the 
songs of Zioti. They were statedly used in the church of 
Israel. Nor has the visible church ever laid them asides 
Even the Baptists themselves, who seem so much inter- 
ested to degrade the ancient church of God, have never* 
ceased to sing her Psalms* Is not here striking evidence ' 
that the church has ever been the same f Can those relig- 1 
ious bodies be perfectly distinct, which can consistently 
and statedly adopt the same forms of worship ? " x 

' 9. The visible church in all ages lias consisted of simi T ; 
ter characters, and been marked by similar vicissitudes.* 
Both before and since the Christian era, it has been made 
&p " of good and bad members-i-of real saints and hypo- 
crites." Some, of the best of men, and some of the worst, 
have from time to time, under both dispensations, ' been v 
found within the pale of the churth. " Revivals and de- ' 
clensions, divisions and sects, defects and excellencies/ 
have existed in it, and been common to it, in all past ages ; • 
which fact shows its identity in each and every period of* 
time, from its commencement to the present moment."** 

10. , Under both dispensations, the church has been spo-- 
ken of mid addressed in similar language.—Christ said of 
his ancient covenant people — " I will declare thy name" 
onto my brethren ; in the midst of the coftgrcgatibn I wilt 
praise thee,"* Of his professing people it is still said— 1 
" He i^ not ashamed to call them brethren."^ In the fol- 
lowing language God addressed his ancient church-^" If 
ye .will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then shalF 
ye he a peculiar treasure unto me, above ail people; And 
ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy na- 
tion." In similar language he addresses his church now-— 
44 Ye are a chosen generation,' a royal priesthood, a holy 
nation, a peculiar pe6ple."j .God said of his ancient 
church— 14 1 will walk among ybu; and will be your God, 
and ye shall be my people,' 11 ne isays of his church now— 
" I will 4weU in them, fuad walk in them, and I will be 
their God, and they shall be itty people.'^— Is not the 

*D, PoaTEB'i Diss, on Baptism, pjp< 24, 25. t Jfc. xxii. 22 ; Heb. ii. llV " 
$)»; Jdbu $, G * * ?«*• fi. f . * I<e?. v x*vi. 12; 2 Cor, \l lff« 



P 



"""1 

< 



46 

identity of the church dearly taught, in this similarity oj 
language which God has held respecting it, in every 

age? 

11. The prophecies of scripture clearly evince, that the 
present visible church is the same with the church of Isra« 
^l.^-Jahn the Baptist predicted of him who should come 
after him, not that he should destroy, but that he should 
* thoroughly purge his floor." (IVfatth. Hi.. 12.) Christ 
did indeed purify his church, but he never destroyed it.*— 
Our Saviour predicted, that many should " come from the 
east, and from the west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac 
*nd Jacob in the kingdom of heaven," while " the chil- 
dren of the kingdom should be cast out, into outer dark- 
aess." {Matth. viii. 11* 12.)— By the phrase, "kingdom 
of heaven," we cannot here understand the kingdom of fuV 
ture glory ; for none of the children of this kingdom will 
ever "be cast- out into outer darkness." The phrase, 
then, ihust denote in this place, as it does in many others, 
the visible church. Hence the prediction of our Saviour 
vras, that when the Jews, " the natural branches," were 
broken off, the Gentiles should come, and sit down in the 
s»me visible church " with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 'W 
In the parable of the vineyard, Christ clearly foretold, that 
the same vineyard, or church, in which the Jews had done 
wickedly, should be taken from them, and given to others. 
** The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and giv r 
en to a naUon bringing fprth the fmits thereof."f 

In proof of the same point, we might adduce a multk 
tude of quotations from the prophecies of the Old Testa., 
menu , Whoever will peruse candidly the ninth chanter of 
Isaiah, and indeed all the ancient predictions of the in- 
gathering of the (gentiles, will be satisfied that they relate, 
not to (he building up of a new church under the gospel, 
but to the enlargement of the; very same church which 
then existed in Jsrael.— The force of this part of the argu* 
roent, Mr. J. endeavours to evade. " Some of these 
prophecies," says he, " relate to the final conversion and 

* The period nf Christ's advent is spoken of by the apostle Pant as « the time 
of rtfbmutfienS* (Heb. iz. 10.) Oa the theory we oppose, /this must bawbee* 
to the ancient church a time, not of reformation, but deitruction* Refonnatioft 
Ifceceasajfty implies the continuance of the thing reformed. 

tMwrk A 9i take joe. 16* Mftttfc jtf. 43. _ 

w •■■■ * „— 



47 



restoration of the Jewish people." Suppose they do ; trill 
the converted, restored Jews be distinct in their church 
Standing from the converted Gentiles ? " Others " hi 
adds, "oelong to the true church of God, the perpetuity 
and identity ot which no one denies." (P. 28.) In answer 
to this remark, we quote but one passage out of many, 
. The prophet Isaiah, addressing the church, says—*" Th6 
children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the oth* 
er 9 shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for 
hie— give place to me, that I may dwell. Then tkou shall 
Say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing / 
have tost my children* and am desolate, a captive, remove 
ing to and fro?" (xlix. 20, 21.) Will Mr. J. pretend, 
that this prediction belongs to the real, as distinct from the 
Visible church of God ? lias the real church ever lost any 
of its children ? Has any real saint ever fallen away ?-^Jn 
short, it cannot be denied that this prediction relates to the 
visible church qf Israel; and establishes the fact, that con- 
verted Gentiles under the new dispensation are children 
and members of this very church. 

12. The sameness of the church under both dispensa* 
tions is certain, from the declarations as well as the proph- 
ecies of scripture. The apostle abundantly teaches, in the 
eleventh chapter of Romans, that the believing Gentiles 
are graffed into the sam6 olive tree from which the unbe- 
lieving Jews were broken off, and into which the restored 
lews shall be graffed again.— What shall we understand 
by the "olive tree ?" Jeremiah, addressing the church, 
says— u The Lord called thy name a green olive tree; fair, 
and of goodly fruit." (xi. 16.) Of the church in Israel, 
the prophet Hosea says — " His branches .shall spread, and 
his beauty shall be as the olive tree." (xiv. 6.) " The oU 
ive tree," therefore, represents the visible church of God. 
from this, the unbelieving Jews were broken off* Into 
the same, the believing Gentiles were graffed. And into 
the same, the restored Jews will at length be grafted again. 
The sameness of the church, therefore, under both dis- 
pensations, is in this chapter incontestable/ established. 

How does Mr. J* interpret this instructive allegory? 
" The olive tree," he says, " may represent the Messiah, 
?s presented in the promises.'* And how did the Jews, 



as a people, belong to the Mess&h ? By profession,* If 
answers*—*** the Jews, as a nation, professea to rest in 
hiim" (P. 29,) If, then, he will be consistent, he will 
proceed and say^-*" When the lews were broken olf, the/ 
renounced their profession qf faith in Christy When the 
Gentiles were grafted in , they came forward, and made the 
same profession which the apostate Jews had renounced* 
And when the posterity of Abraham shall be grafted in a- 
gain* they will be re- united to Christ, by the same profes*. 
sion." If this interpretation is more favourable than our$ 
to Mr, ivx> sow's system, he is welcome to every ad van* 
tage he can possibly derive from it- Wfe will only insist 
that he should follow it throughout, and be consistent with 
himself.— —We purpose to introduce but one passage 
more. The apostle, addressing his Ephesian brethren^ 
says— -* € Wherefore "remember, that ye, being in time past 
Gentiles in the flesh.. ...were without Christ; being aliens 
from the commonwealth of Israel* and strangers from the 
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God 
in the world.** (ii. 11, 12.) Does this form of expression 
certainly imply, that the Ephesians were no longer " with- 
out "Cfirist, having no hope, and without God in thfc 
world V 9 It implies with equal certainty, that they were 
no longer " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." It 
is precisely as 'certain from this passage, that they, were 
now members of the commonwealth or church of Israel* as 
that they believed in Christ, enjoyed the comforts of hope, 
or adored and served the God of heaven. 

Again—There is evidence from fact* that there never 
has been but one visible church in the world. During: 
Christ's publick ministry, his disciples were members of 
the Jewish church. They uniformly observed the ordi- 
nances of that church, and attended on the temple worship. 
After his ascension, we find theiyi pillars in the Christian 
church. Had they been cut off from one church* and ta- 
ken into another? And if they had, how, and when, was 

*' *That we have not misunderstood Mr. J. is evident from a remark imate<Bftte~ 
iy preceding:. He introduces these words of Christ-**" Every bwBf& in me that 
beareth not frnit, he taketh away,'* (John xv. 2,) and says, u This may suggest 
the proper interpretation -of the symbolical language of 'the apostle. ,v (P. 29.) 
His theory then is, that the unbelieving Jews belonged to the olive tree T m the) 
same sense that fruitless branches are here said to be in Christ ; — that is, as every 
ifcspectable Commentator acFees~-J# profession. See Foot, Hjenbt, Dont)*^ 
ju&ge, and Statf, m Ivhn xv. % 






* 



'this done ^Nothing can before evident, tliau that thfe 
disciples belonged to the same church, on the day of Pen- 
tecost, and afterwards, to which they belonged on the 
night when they.ate the Passover with their blessed Lord. 
And from this fact it conclusively follows, that the church 
tinder both dispensations has been the same* 

It is no inconsiderable argument in favour of the identi- 
ty of the church, that Mr. J* with all his ingenuity, and 
** froni all the information** he " can obtain/' is obliged to 
make nearly the same observations respecting it, unde^ 
Both dispensations* Of " the Jewish church" he says— *• 
u it was a select people," who "professed to rest" in the 
promised Messiah. (Pp. 29,30.) Of the Christian church 
ne says, within a few lines-*- 4 * it is a society composed of 
select individuals, professing faith in Christ*" (P. 30.) Na 
Wonder he seems almost willing to admit, that these church* 
es " may be in many respects alike*" (P. 29.) 

We have now proved, we think to a demonstration, the 
ttifienttty of the viable churchy in att periods of time* 
' . It Is at present called, as was predicted, by a new name; 
(Is. Ixii. 2.) it has been brought under a new and brighter 
dispensation ; but to all intents and purposes it remake 
tiie same as before Ac coming of^Christ. 

We shall proceed, in the following sections, to make 3 
rttf mfeer of inferences from this important fact* 



Section 1L 

TRe Covenant of the Visible Chutck the same, under both 

Dispensations. 

THIS is our first iirference from the identity of the 
church, as established in the preceding section. The 
church is indissolubly and essentially connected With its 
covenant. It cannot possibly exist without it. If we de- 
stroy the covenant, -we destroy the church. If we essen- 
tially change the covenant, we change the church. — These 
positions have the countenance of Mr. J< himself. He 
states that the sameness of the Jewish and Christian 
churches " cannot be proved, by showing that they ai*f; 
founded on the same covenant ; Jbr there i$ no evidence" 



M 

4 






$Q % 

t - 

that their covenant is the same. (P. 28.) .-This form of 
expression necessdrily implies, that if. there were evidence 
of the sameness pf their covenant, there would be equal 
evidence of *the sameness of these churches. It implies, 
thereforev that the church is essentially and inseparably- 
connected with its covenant. Hence, would he admit the 
identity of the church under both dispensations, he could 
not resist the conclusion we have derived' — he could not 
avoid saying, that the covenant of the church has also been 
essentially the same 

What was the covenant of the church of Israel ? Was it 
the Sinai covenant ? No;, for God had solemnly promised 
to be their God,, and, when speaking of them, uniformly 
calls them his people, previous to the promulgation of his 
covenant from Sinai.* — The covenant of the ancient 
church was unquestionably the covenant with Abraham. 
In this covenant, God first promises to be t/ie God of A- 
braham's posterity.. Immediately after, he begins to, call 
this favoured family his people. And in all subsequent 
scripture* when speaking of them as his people, he usually 
annexes some special reference to his covenant dealings 
with AJbrahanj.t— That the covenant with Abraham was, 
the covenant of the church of Israel,, is evident from the 
Mosaick institutions themselves. The design of these in- 
stitutions was merely that God might establish Israel to be 
a people unto himself, and that he might be unto them a 
Gpd, as he had <c sworn unto their fathers, to Abraham, to 
Isaac, and to Jacob" (t)eut. xxix. 13.)— Since, then, the 
covenant with Abraham was the covenant of the ancient 
visible church ;. and since the visible church has been un*. 
der both dispensations essentially the same ; the covenant 
with Abraham must now be the covenant of the visible 
Christian church. This inference has not been deduced, 
without a deep and prayerful examination of the subject* 
It is now deduced,, with the utmost confidence that it nev- 
er can Be fairly set aside. The covenant of the visible 
church still is, or ought to be,, but anew edition of the 
covenant with Abraham. 

That die covenant with Abraham still exists, as the cov- 
enant of the church, may be argued from many other coh- 
i#lerations* 

* See Esuii/6, 7,&c*. t See.Ex. lib 9, 7 y Vs. xJrii. 9 ; tuke i-68, 73, ko* - 



51 v 

tt still exists, because it has never been abolished. As 
God established this covenant, and gave it to his church, 
it must remain till it is abolished by the same authority. 
Where, then, is the evidence that God has abolished his 
covenant with Abraham ? Suffice it to say, that no such 
evidence exists. No, there is not one particle of such ev* 
idence in all the word of God» ■ Mr- J. indeed supposes, 
because the ancient token of this covenant is not now to 
be enforced or Gentile believers, that the covenant itself 
is done away. The token of a covenant, says he, u is one 
species of language. The language of the Rainbow is, 
There wiH never again be a deluge." When, therefore, 
God prohibits the token of a covenant, he says, * let it be 
no longer said that such a covenant exists." {P. 26.)-— 
The wnole of this argument proceeds on the principle, 
that in covenanting, a visible token is essential* Is this 
true ? May not promises and requirements be mutually 
binding, without such a token ? May not a covenant exist 
without it, as well as with it ? Hence, had God entirely 
removed every token of his ancient covenant, might he not 
still leave the covenant itself, in all its force ?— -But, even 
admitting that a token is essential to a covenant, may not 
God affix to his covenant such a token as he pleases ? 
May he not, with a change of circumstances, alter the to* 4 
ken of his covenant at pleasure, and still the covenant re- 
main the same ? Were the rainbow lb give place to a vis- 
ible circle in the heavens, which God should inform us 
was emblematick of the same, would Mr. L suppose the 
covenant with Noah vacated ? Would he have reason to 
fear another deluge ? And if circumcision has given place 
to another visible token, which God has informed us is 
emblematick of the same, has he any reason to conclude 
that the covenant with Abraham has been abolished ?•— On 
any ground, therefore, the prohibition of circumcision to 
Gentile believers furnishes not, in itself, one particle of ev- 
idence that the covenant under consideration has ceased to 
exist.* 



r 



* Mr. h more than once intimates, {hat he considers the covenant with Abra- 
ham still binding upon the Jews. " When they shall repent and return?* says he, 
44 God will again renumber his covenant." (P. 20.) Repentance and refirmm~ 
/ton, then, will be a virtual fulfilment of their part in the covenant with Abraham. 
And when they have fulfilled their part, God will be faithful to remember hi*, 
and, as oppressed in the nest sentence, w he will restore his favour." From this 



#2 . 

That the covenant wkh Abraham still exists, as the qgv~ 
onant of the church, is alsQ evident ffgm its promises and 
requirements* Every* covenant consists essentially itt 
promises said requirements, If # therefore, tKe covenant 
with Abraham shall be found to present the wine general 
promises and requirements which are hrfd forth to believr 
prs under the gospel, we oanqot avoid the conclusion, that 
this is still the covenant of the visible church. 

This covenant holds up a Saviour, as the object of feithfr 
(Gen, xiL 3.) and so does the gospel. It contains prom- 
ises of all needful temporal blessings ; (Gen. ami, 80 and 
so does ths gospel. (I Tim. iv, 8-) Here are promises of 
great prosperity to Zion ; (Gen, xvii. 2.) and these prom* 
ases are repeated throijghwt *tbe Bible. (Luke xiu 32*) 
Jlere are prqmises in which Abraham saw his title to heav- 
en i* and believers find such promises in the gespel of Je- 
sus, Here are promises of distinguished honour for the 
seed of Abraham; (Gen. xvii. 6.) and his spiritual seed 
find such promises in the New Testament. (Rev. tii. 21.) 
In short, God bene promises to be a God to his people, 
and their children after them ; (Gen. xvii. 7.) and a. greats 
er promise never has been, or can be made, in this or in 
the coming world. (Heb. viii. 10 $ Rey* mxi* 7«) 

Mr. J. having quoted the covenant with Abraham, asks 
the believer, with an $ir of confidence^-" Is this the cove* 
nant which God has made with you ? Has God covenant* 
*d to give you these blessings ?" (P^ IT.^With equal 
confidence we ask the believer-*-" Is" not " this the cove* 
'nant which God ha? made with you ?" Has he ever cove* 
nanted to give you any blessings which are not implied or 
included here P^r-^Let us now look at the requirements of 
this covenant. In promising to be the portion of Abra* 
ham, he implicitly required Abraham to accept of him as 
his portion* In holding up the Messiah as an object of 
faith, be implicitly required him to beliwe in the Messiah. 

Recount of the covenant with Abraham, I cannot for my life see, that it is pot the 
covenant of grace. Repentance and reformation are its conditions ; die favour 
of God its promise, — Furthermore ; it appears from the atarve concession, that the 
converted, restored Jews wfll be placed on the footing of the covenant with Abra- 
ham. Will they not he members of the Christian chn?eh ? Will not their cbttrefc 
standing be similar to that of the converted Gentiles ?-~In short, if*Mr. J. will 
^consistently follow his own concession respecting the Abrahaouck covenant^ *m 
will ask no more. 

* Compare Octi. xvfi. 8, with Heb. ». 9, 10. 



* 
* 



J." ■ » 



43" v 

In inquiring of fcim cireumttfiion, he ret}uirecMhat of tolitfeb 
circumcision was. an emblem, viz. a renewal of heart to 
holiness. And be expressly required him to walk before ' 
him, and be perfect* (Gen. xvii. 1.)— JHas God ever ceas- 
ed to make these requirements ? Or will he cease to make 
them of fallen creatures, so long as the world endures? 

We see, then, from the promises $nd requirements, or 
from the very nature, of the covenant with Abraham, that 
it must still exist, as the covenant of the visible church. 

To our interpretation of this covenant, we are sensible 
there have been objections. 

Mr. J. contends* that it cannot be the covenant of the 
Christian church, because it contains a promise of the, land 
of Canaan* (P. 18.)— -Haw did Abraham understand this x 
promise ? That he and his posjerity understood it, prima- 
rily, as a promise of the literal Canaan, and of temporal 
prosperity, is conceded* But was this alt, or a principal 
irt, of what Abraham saw in the promise ? Certainly not* 
he apostle informs us, that " by faith he sojourned m M . 
this temporal " land of promise, as in a strange country, 
dwelling in tabernacles*" And why? " He desired a bet* 
ter country, that {$> an heavenly ." And "he looked," 
through the promise he had received, " for a city which 
hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." 
(Heb* xi.)^ Certainly Abraham saw, in the promise of 
; Canaan, his tide to the heavenly rest* It will be safe if 
I we understand this promise as it was understood by the 
' father of the fkithftil.— This interpretation is so easy, and 
one into which the mind so naturally fells, that it is ques* 
» tioned whether Mr. J* can keep entirely clear of it in his 
common conversation* Does not the way in which Israel 
was led through the wilderness, remind turn of the way irt 
| which Christians are led through life ? Does he not famil- 9 * 
! iarly speak of the Jordan of death ? Does he ijever pro* 
i eeed so far as evento talk of the heavenfy Canaan? He 
I wilt not, then, censure either Abraham, or us, for #scov- ... 
eriijg, in the promise under consideration, a promise of the 
focavehly world. "* • ' 

We have referred to the promise-~"In thee shaH all the - 
luttilies of the earth be blessed"— first made to Abraham/ 
I # at the time of his call, and first recorded in the twelfth 
chapter of Qenesis, as constituting a j^rt of the covenant 



ra 



si 

with Abraham. ^ Mn J. has followed Dt, Bald wik, and 
others, in assorting that " this promise is not contained in 
the covenant of circumcision, but in a covenant made with 
Abraham, twenty. four. years before." This promise, he 
allows, is a " gospel promise," and "the ^ver-memorable 
chatter of all the blessings which Jewish and Gentile be- 
lievers enjoy through Christ." (P. 24.)— It would seem, 
then, that the controversy, so far as the covenant with A- 
braham is concerned, is here brought within narrow limits. 
Were this promise to be given up, it would not indeed 
follow that the covenant with . Abraham was given up* 
But if this promise can be retained as a part of the cove- 
nant, it can never again be disputed that this covenant 
comprises the covenant of grace* Were this promise to 
be given up, it might still ^e proved with nearly an equal 
clearness, that the covenant with Abraham is the covenant 
of the visible church. But if it can be shown that this 
'promise is embraced in die covenant with Abraham, it 
will be shown that this covenant is " the ever-memorable 
charter of all the blessings which Jewish and Gentile be- 
tievers «njoy through Christ," , 

. It is manifest that God made but one covenant with A- 
braham. His covenant transactions with this patriarch 
arc spoken of throughout the scriptures in the singular 
Jarm. " The Lord thy God will not forget the covenant 
of the fathers." (Deut. iv. 31.) " To remember his holy 
4:tmenant y the oath which he sware to Abraham." (Luke i. 
JT2, 73.) " Ye are the children of the covenant which 
God made with our fathers." (Acts iii. 25.) 

There is as much reason to suppose that God made 
eight covenants with Abraham, as that he made more than 
one. He certainly appeared to him, and addressed him in 
covenant language, at eight different times.* Nor is there 
any thing in the subjects on which he addressed him, 
which would lead us to fix on two covenants, rather than 
on eight. Those, therefore, who do not believe that he 
made eight distinct covenants with him, (and there is per- 
haps not a person on earth who does believe this,) have no 
reason to suppose that he made with him- more than one. 
., It is evident, from thp similarity of those promises which ^ , 
at different times were made to Abraham, .that they all be^ J 

♦Gen. au. 1 and 7 j xMi. 14; XT. 1 j xm xti&. wd. 12; «&<!»>• & 



long to one audi the same covenant. , The promise of a «»£ 
merous posterity was made and repeated to him, at no less 
than seven different periods.* The promise of the land 
of Canaan was made and repeated to him, at four different 
periods, f The promise of God for his portion was also 
made to him, impliedly or expressly, at four different peri- 
ods.J And die promise, that m him all nations and fami- 
lies should be blessed, was expressly repeated at three dif- 
ferent periods. $ Can promises so similarly repeated, and 
so inseparably interwoven, be considered as belonging to 
more than one covenant ? And is it possible to form more 
than one covenant from them, without putting asunder 
tilings which God hath joined together, and doing the ut- 
most violence to the $acred text ?— It will be asked, K\ 
"these promises, made at different times, comprise but one 
covenant, why were not all of them uttered at once ?— Ev- 
idently they were utteted at different times, for the trial 
;and confirmation of the patriarch's faith. * Before he was 
finally constituted u father of the faithful," and the cove- 
nant was sealed, and confirmed with an oath, it was prop- 
» er that his faith should endure repeated trials. And it 
surely was proper, amidst these severe trials, that his faith 
should be assisted by repeated promises and encourage* 
ments.H 

These covenant transactions were renewed both with I- 
saac and Jacob ; and it is certain from these renewals, that 
t^ey constitute but one covenant. In both these instances, 
those promises which from time to time had been repeat- 
, ; cd to Abraham, are brought together within the compass 
of three verses.H Mr. J. supposes there were two cov- 
enants with Abraham; that the leading promise of the one 
*was what lie denominates the " gospel promise," ** lit thy 
'seed shall the nations of the earth be blessed ;" (p. 24.} 
and that the leading promise of the other was that of Ca- 

*Gen. xii* 2> xm, 16; xt. 5;,3nri*.g; xviii. 1&? xxi. 13$ and xxii, 17. 

. fxii. J ; xiii. 15 ;. XT. 7 5 and xrii. 8. \ xii. 2, 3 ; xt. 1 ; xyji. 7, 8 ; and xxii. 17. 

I fxii. 3; xviii. 18; and xxii.'TB. . 

|| The process of these covenant transactions, says Dr. Reed, "exhibits a most 
1 sinking and beautifiil climax. In the first instance, we see the blessing confirm- 
ed to Abraham and tlpseed hjjpremite. (Gen. xii. 1—3.) Secondly, this prom-, 
tsed blessing is conmticd by covenant. (Gen. xv. 18.) Thirdly, this covenanted 
% blessing is confirmed, by annexing the token of circumcision. (Gen. xrii. 10.)* 
t And, fourthly, by the o*M,oCAlmighty God* (Gen*, xxii. 16.)"-*-*»lUu3i>'t Apojy 
I egy, p. 66V i Gen. «xri. %—A y and xxriii. 13^15. 



^ 

t 



I* 

nafct, (P. 1&) Let ti^, apply »his JiypoAeBir toaftert rf 
the fourth verse of the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis* 
" Ivnli give unto thy seed blithest countries; and intkyr 
teed shall all the nations qfthe earth he blessed.' ' Accord^ 
, iag. to his theory, here Ore two distinct covenants— kjotc- 
nants as widely different as temporal things and spiritual, 
as earth and heaven— brought witfam kss than the coro-> 
. pass of a single sentence and a siagjk verse I If such at 
, theory can obtain credit, no theorist need despair. And H 
. might be expected that a person who could spread sucba 
theory before the publick, wobld compiakrof ethers for 
" uskjg ipidue freedom with the word of God," and " frit- 
tering qway the plain import of scripture." (P. 19.) 
. From what his been said* it appears to be fully proved, 
that God never constituted more than one covenant with 
Abraham. And if he sever constituted mom* than one 
covenant with him, thee certainly the promise tinder con^ 
sideration— the promise that in him nil nations should be 
blessed— itoade a part of this covenant* Indeed this «» 
expressly asserted by the apostle Peter* u Ye are the 
children," says he, " of the prophets, and of the covenant 
which God made with our fathers, saying mto Mrafoxmr 
And intky seed shall all the kindred* of the earth be blese* 
.«£" (Acts iii. 25.) This promise is here expressly quoted* 
as belonging to the one eavenmt which God made with 
Abraham. ^ 

. That this promise is included is also certain, since it it 
iff the same impart wUh seme of the .promises which -were 
made when circumcision was instituted* God repeatedly 
promised, at this, time, that Abraham should be " the fa- 
ther of many nations." (Gen* xvti* 4, 5.) He consequent- 
ly promised, that nations should be his children. Is it not 
a great blessing to be interested in this promise— to be the 
children of Abraham ? Is it possible to be blessed through 
Christ in ^ny other way ? " If ve are Christ 9 s f then are ve 
Abraham? s seed." (Gal. iii. 29.) But if it is so invaluable: 
a blessttrg to be the seed of Abraham, or to have Abraham 
for a father, where is the difference between the two prom* 
ises— " I wilt make thee a father of many nations" and 
" Many nations shall be blessed in thee ?" Evidently they 
are of the same import* — It is proved, therefore, that what 
Mr. J. denominates the " gosjpel pronlise^" is included m 



Mr 

the CbVeiUtttt Wkfc AibrAam* H k tieitee prttfsd, to adopt 
bis own phrise, thatt tira cotenant contain* "the ever, menu 
Orable charter of all the bfessings which Jfewish and Gen* 
tile believers enjoy through Christ."* 

Mr* Jtinsort's interpretation of that part of the covenant 
kl which God promises to be the God of Abraham and his 
&eed v is very remarkable* ' He supposes he Was the God 
"of the nation of Israel At targe," and the God of aU, both 
good and bad, in the sprite *en£e» u God is represented 
in the scriptures/' says he* ** at the God of his people id 
different senses* In the new covenant, recorded Heb* viii* 
10, he is represented as " the spiritual portion of his peo* 
pie/' Ih Rer« xxi 3, be is represented as " their eterndl 
portion." And in the covenant With Abraham, he pro* 
ceeds to state, he is represented as their temporul portion* 
That i6, to use his own words, "the promise imported, that 
he would multiply and protect them, grant them an abun- 
dance of temporal blessings, and distinguish diem abort 
all other nations by spiritual advantages/* (R 19.) 

Not to inquire whether God did multiply, protect, and 
bless the Israelites more than some other nations, and 
whether on these accounts he was their fiW> m a better 
sense than he was the God^of thfe Chaldeans, Greeks, or 
Romans) we would with great seriousness fai<jdire into 
the propriety of thus representing God as die portion of 
his people in a number of different senses* He 6oeB in- 
deed promise, in Heb* viii. 10, to be the spiritual portion 
of fads people ; but is it here implied that he wilt not be 
their temporal and eternal portion ? He does indeed prom* 
ise, in the Revelations, to be the eternal portion of his peo- 
ple i but is it here implied that h6 will not be their spirit* 
tml portion ? How, then, does it appear, when in the cov- 
enant God promises to be the God of Abraham and his 
seed, that this merely implies that he wiH be their tempordt 
portion,— — That this promise secured infinitely more 
than merely temporal blessings— tihat it secured a resur* 
rectibn to future life and glory, is certain from the inter- 
pretation of our Saviour* " That the dead are raised^ 
says he, " even Moses showed at the bush, When he called 
the Lord, the God of Abrhharn, and the Qod of Isaac, and 

•See Dr. Res&'b Apology, j>p. 61—68; Dr. Avsvur'a Vi«w of GMch, pp. 
36-41 ; an^Dr. Wo*cS0rs&'i Letters, pp. 9*40, 

9 



Ac Gad qf Jacob ; *r God is not the God of the dead, hit 
of the living ."*— And that God would have been ashamed 
to be called the God of Abraham and his posterity, in that 
low sense which Mr. J. has supposed— that he would have 
been ashamed to be called their God, had he not provided 
for them a heavenly city, is certain from the apostle Paul* 
" Now they desire," he observes, "a. better country, that 
is, ah heavenlu. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be 
called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city" 
^Heb. xi. 16.)— In short, if God is the indivisible sum of 
all good, whenever he promises to be the portion of any, 
his promise not only insures every thing on the whole de- 
sirable, but must continue in effect for time and eternity. 
- But Mr* J. objects, that he was not in this sense the God 
of all the Israelites ; .and the promise, thus interpreted, was 
not fulfilled.— If this is a difficulty, he shall himself help to 
solve it. "A refusal to accept a promised favour," says 
lie, " always releases the promiser from his obligations.'* 
(P. 20.). NoW did not every Israelite, who was not a 
saint, refuse to accept the Lord for his portion ? And was 
not the Lord faithful to his promise, though a multitude of 
hypocrites rejected him, and went down to hell ? Was he 
not the portion, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, of all who 
really nut their trust in him ? 

If Mr. Jud son's interpretation of the promise, that God 
would be the portion of the seed of Abraham, must be re* 
jected, it will be asked, What ground shall be taken in re* 
latian to this subject ? In what sense is God the portion of 
the offspring oj oelievers ?— But this is a question in which 
Antipedobaptists have no immediate concern, and which 
ought never to be agitated in the controversy with them* 
Let them admit that the children of believing parents have- 
an interest in the church covenant, and have consequently 
a right to its. appropriate seal, and we will then freely con- 
fer with them on the nature and ground of this interest* 
Till they do admit this, there is a previous question, which 
entirely cuts them off from the one here proposed. 

We have now examined the covenant with Abraham, 
and removed the principal objections to that interpretation 
of it which has bwn given. We think it certain from the 
very nature of this covenant, that it must still exist as the 
covenant of die church. 

# fcuke xx, 37, 38. See Walta* on the place. 



• « 



5$ 

* « « * 

We proceed to establish the same truth, from the con-' 
current testimony of the word of God» • 

The prophet Daniel, speaking of the great reformation 
which should take place during those seven years, in the 
iniddle of which the Messiah should be cut off, has these 
remarkable words-— 44 He shall confirm the covenant with 
many,lor one week." (ix. 27.) The present covenant of 
the church— the covenant ttrith Abraham, during this pro* 
phetick week, or these seven years, he shall confirm* with 
many. It appears from this prediction, that it was the 
covenant with Abraham which wis confirmed- with those 
multitudes whA were added to the disciples on the day of 
Pentecost, and in the first ^succeeding years of the gospel 
dispensation. 

In his exhortation to the people on the day of Pentecost, 5 
the apostle Peter expressly alludes to that promise of the 
.Abrahamick covenant— 44 1 will be a God to thee and to 
thy seed" 44 The promise is to you, and to your children.'* 
(Acts ii. 39.)— -Mr. J. can see in these words no allusio& 
to the covenant. The promise here referred to, he sup* 
poses, is the promise of the Spirit, which had been pre- 
viously quoted from the prophet Joel. (P. 22.)— But 
what reason can be offered for this opinion? Surely note 
Any connexion between the promise under consideration, 
and the quotation from Joel ; for the passages are nearly 
"twenty verses asunder, and have as litde connexion as 
any two in the word of God. . Neither can it be pre* 
tended, that the same favours were promised to the three 
thousand and their children, which were embraced in the 
prediction that had been quoted from the prophet. Joel 
predicted the out- pouring of the Spirit in his miraculous 
influences* 44 1 will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; 
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and 
your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall 
dream dreams ; and I will show wonders* in heaven above, 
'and signs in the earth beneath." (Acts ii. 17— 19.) Is it 
likely that the miraculous influences of the Spirit Were ei- 
ther promised or imparted to all the converts on the day of 
Peutecost, together with their children ? And if this should 
be pretended, we ask still &xt\\er->-ff r hat encouragement 

■ * T3S7 niake strong, corroborate. The MessitJ* wrroborated the covenant 
With Abraham, w$tead of destroying it 



y 



<U#uldthe promise, thus interpreted^ afford to the multitude 
to " rcpint and be baptized?" It was highly pertinent, in 
justification of those' miraculous appearances, which some, 
were ready to attribute to intoxication, to prove tfiat these 
were merely an accomplishment of ancient prophecies ; 
but what propriety ' m encouraging the people to repent 
and be baptized, by assuring them that, a promise of mrac* 
vkus powers was to them and their children ? 

Let it be kept in mind, that; the persons whom the apos- 
tle addressed were Jews, They were either the natural or 
the proselyted seed of Abraham, When, therefore, they 
Vere encouraged to repent and be baptized, and thus take 
hold of the everlasting covenant, by the consideration that 
the promise was Jo them and their children, how naturally and 
necessarily would they minds reVert to that great and gto, 
nous promise pf the covenantw^the promise made to Ahrfr- 
Jbam, their boasted patriarch and father*-*" / will be a Gfocf, 
tp ike* and thy *wrf*"-»-The passage, in this interpretation* 
Which is the only consistent one, affords conclusive evi* 
dence of the existence of the covenant with Abraham, un- 
der the gospel dispensation.* 

The same truth is clearly established in the succeeding 
chapter, Addressing the people, the apostle Peter affirms, 
«' Ye are the children of the prophets, and of -the covenant 
which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abrahami 
And in thy seed shaft ail the kindreds of the earth be bless- 
ed"* (Acts iii. 25.) How could these persons be embra- 
ced, like children, in the arms of a -covenant which had 
Waxed old, and vanished away ? * 

When the tongue of Zacharias was loosed, on the birth 
of his son, he " prophesied, saying ; Blessed be the Lord 
<5od of Israel ; for he hath visited and redeemed his peo- 
pie*..,. .to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and 
to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to 
aur father Abraham," &c. (Luke i.* 67, 75.) Zacharias 
here speaks, in the manner of the ancient prophets, of e- 
vtnts future, as though they were already past. " He' 
bath visited and redeemed his people ;*' i, e, he will visit 
and redeem them, It is evident from the wholp of this* 
prophecy, that, sq far is the covenant with Abraham from, 

~*Sep Flavel's Works, toL ii. p. 455; Bostwkh's Vindication of Inf. Bap. 
j$>, 1— £ j P, , CLAJRM'e CaacUd Reason^ &e.^?p. 47-r70« ... r .-•• 



61 

being already abolished, it must continue to -exist, «tl$ 
continue in effect, till God has entirely completed the re* 
demption of his people. 

The apostle ftuil asserts, that "Jesus Christ vm* a mte- 
isterofthe circumcision." (Roan. xy. 8.) In what sense 
can this be true ? Was he a minister under that covenant 
which was sealed with circumcision f Or was he a minis- 
ter of those persons who were under this covenant f Iir 
either c^se, it would seem unquestionable, thgt the cove- 
nant with Abraham— the covenant formerly sealed with 
circumcision, must be the gospel covenant. y 

Circumcision, as here suggested, was indubitably a seal 
of the covenant with Abraham. It confirmed to all what 
complied, with the conditions of this covenant, their titte 
to the blessings promised. But, says the Holy Spirit; 
"^Circumcision ^vas a seal of the righteousness of faith.** 
(Rom, iv. 11.) It assured all who received it with right 
affections, that their faith was imputed Jbr righteousness, 
or their sins forgiven. Certainly, therefore, justification 
by faith, or the forgiveness of' sins, was one of the Mess* 
ings promised in the covenant with Abraham. And a cov*" 
enant which contains such a promise, must certainly com* 
prise the covenant of grace.— ~— Mr. I. follows his Antfc* 
pedobaptist brethren,* in supposing that circumcision was 
a seal of the righteousness of faith to none but Abraham, 
His reason is~-»none but Abraham ever received circum- 
cision directly from God ; and " none but God can seat* 
die righteousness of faith* None hilt God can declare 
faith imputable for righteousness/' (P. 24.) His mean- 
ing undoubtedly is — none but God can justify the believ- 
er. None " can forgive sins but God only."-~This sen* 
timent, we admit, is true ; but it is not the sense of the 
passage in dispute. In this sense, circumcision was not a 
seal o? the righteousness of faith, even to Abtaham. God 
did not give Abraham an interest in his pardoning mercy y 
when he gave him circumcision ; for this holy man had" 
been a pardoned, justified believer, many years previous ta 
this event. What he gave htm at this time, was 4i a seed 
of the righteousness of faith" It was to be a visible to- 
ken, not only in his flesh, but in the flesh of all those who 



* Mr. Jombkb, Dr. Blxpwiir, &c. This not&iK wy« Mr. FXiAVEfc 
dewed from Bxu4JUlur», an Italiaa Jesuit* 



, was fits* 



should receive it in a proper niatfner, proclaiming to the 
world that their faith was imputed for righteousness, and 
their sins washed away. It was as much a seal of the 
righteousness of faith, in the flesh of Isaac* or Jacob, or 
amy of the pious under the former dispensation^as it was iii 
the flesh of him who revived it directly from God. This 
passage, therefore, furnishes conclusive evidence, that the 
covenant once sealed with circumcision comprises the cov- 
enant of grace, and is stiU the covenant of the visible 
church.* 

In various parts of the New Testament, believers are 
denominated Abraham's seed. "If ye be Christ's, then 
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the prom- 
ise." (Gal. iii. 29.) In commenting on this passage, Mr* 
I. undertakes to show, why those who are Christ's, kft 
called the seed or children of Abraham. And the reason, 
he observes, is /this—" They are like Abraham in their 
ifharactet and conduct." (P. 23.)— We beg leave to ask 
whether this is a sufficient reason. True believers resem- 
ble Noah, or Job, or Daniel, in character and conduct, as 
well as Abraham. If the reason he has given is the only 
or principal one in the case, may they not then with as 
much propriety be called the children of Noahj Job, or 
Daniel, as the children of Abraham ? Yea, may not be- 
lievers at the present day with as much propriety be de- 
nominated the children of President Edwards, orDr, 
JVatts— and believers in future days, the children of Dr* 
Carey, or Dr. Baldwin — as the children of Abraham ? 
Were it not for the fetters of Mr. Judson's nefr sys- 
tem, it would be matter of astonishment, that he could, in 
this place, mistake the truth. Was it not a promise of the 
covenant with Abraham, that he should be "a father of 
many nations ?" or, which is the same, that believers of 
many nations should be his children ?\ When, therefore, 
believing Gentiles— believers of many nations-r-are in the 
New Testament called his children, is there any difficulty 
in comprehending the reason of \i? Is it not manifestly 
because they are interested in those promises which were 

* See Dr, Worcester's Letters to Dr. Bamwtn, Let* ix. 

[ t u Now we, brethren," says Paul} ** are, as Isaac was, the children of prom* 
ise ; M or promised children. (Gal. iv. 215.) Abraham had- as^explicit a promise, 
fft the covenant, that believing Gentiles should be his children, as he ever ba£ 
that he^hould have a son* 



• ■ 4* 

wade to Abraham, ami embraced in that covenant of whlfclv 
he' is the patriarchal head ?-— In this interpretation we cer-^ 
tainly are not mistaken ; for we have the explicit counte- 
nance and assent of the apostle Paul. Writing to the, 
Gehtiles, and calling Abraham their father, he quotes for 
his authority the eovenant with Abraham. "I have made 
thee a father of many .nations." (Rom. iv. 17.) Was the 
apostje correct ? Then, as long as Abraham is the father 
of believer >•— as long as they are denominated his chxldrenr--* 
the covenant with him must continue in force, and contin-, 
ue to be accomplished. 

; Mr. J. slides over this explicit testimony to the exist-! 
ence of, the Abrahamick covenant under the gospel dis- 
pensation, by asserting that here is only an allusion. Or 
at most, the promise of the covenant is quoted and applied 
by the apostle in only a secondary or figurative sense*. 
(P. 25.) — But what right has he to assert, that this passage 
is merely alluded to, in a figurative sense ? Are not words 
and phrases to betaken in their original and most literal 
sense, unless the connexion render some other interpreta- 
tion necessary ? And what necessity for any other inter- 
pretation here> unless it be the obliquity of Mr. Judson's 
system ? If his manner of sliding over this passage be al* 
lowable, no real connexion between the Old and New Tes- 
taments can, in any case,, be substantiated. , A Jew might - 
allege that the sufferings of Christ were not a direct fulfil- 
ment of the twenty- second Psalm, with as much propriety 
as Mr. J. alleges, that the calling of saints the children of 
Abraham, is not in direct fulfilment of the covenant with 
Abraham.* 

* The calling of Christ out of Egypt is represented by Matthew (ii. 16) as a 
fulfilment of that declaration of Hosea— " When Israel was a child, then I tore! 
him, and called.. my eon out of Egypt*" (xL 1.) And the factf that in the suffer* 
ings of Christ not a bone of him was broken, is represented by John (xix. 36) as 
a fulfilment of the declaration concerning the paschal lamb-** 4 A bone of hint 
shall not be broken." (Ex. xii. 46.) Mr. J. supposes that the apostle, refers to 
the covenant with Abraham, just as Matthew and John refer, in these instances, 
to other parts of the Old Testament (P. 35.)— Were this granted, the argument 
would be little impaired. If he believes Matthew and John, he beMeves the scrip* 
tures they refer to were never fulfilled, till they were fulfilled in Christ. Both of 
them testify, that the facts they relate came to pass, u that the tcrvfKures might 
btfuljUhdy (See Matth. ii. 15, and John xix. 36.) If Mr. J. will allow that the 
calling of believers the children of Abraham, is in fulfilment of the covenant with 
-Abraham ; and that this covenant wiH continue in effect, and to be fulfilled, a* 
long as believers are called after this manner ; we need ask no more.— We do not, 
however, grant thjit Jhe referencjs in question are smUUer. Paul undoubtedly 



\ 



Before I pfoceodi farther , 1 beg the privilege of making 

* single remark. How do these Antipedobaptist princi* 
tend to narrow and contract the sense of scripture t 

ike the fabled bed of Procrustes, they bring to the same 
dimensions every passage which touches them ! Express 
sio«s winch, taken in their most obvious meaning, present 
-enlarged views of divine* truth* are here contracted by somd 

* private interpretation*" till they strike the mind in the 
titmost comparative leanness,— -It seems td be a settled 
maxim, with those who undertake to defend these princi- 
ples, that the covenant with Abraham must be set aside* 
The only question is^ffow shall this be done? Hedges 
best, who can best solve this inquiry * and with the great- 
est plausibility free them from the obnoxious covenant.—* 
Bat, after their utmost efforts, the covenant with Abraham 
remains* " It stands," in the elegant language of Dr* 
Austin—" it stands, like an ever* verdant Cedar of Leba- 
non, flourishing * under the care of the Jehovah of Israel* 
It is the precious shade* under which all the millions of 
Christian believers, the pious Baptists themselves not ex- 
cepted, with their father Abraham, joyfully rest*" 

We shall introduce, in this connexion, but one passage 
more. Writing to the Hebrews, the apostle says—* 
44 When God made promise to Abraham, because he could 
swear by no greater, he sware by himself/ saying, Surely 
blessing, I will bless thee, and multiplying > I will multiply 

thee, -.that by two immutable things, in which it was 

impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consola- 
tion, who have fled for rjbfuge, to lay hold upon the hope 
set before us." (Heb. vi. 13— 18.)— .On this passage, we 
offer the two following remarks. . l t Here is explicit ref- 
erence to a promise of the covenant with Abraham, record* 
ed in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. 2. These prom* j 
asea, and the covenant to which they belong, being after* 1 
wards confirmed by an oath, are now the covenant in which 
Christians stand. We are informed it was confirmed by 
an oaith, u that....~w*"— professing Christians^" might 
have strong consolation." How could the confirmation of 
this covenant with an oath afford strong consolation to 

referred to the covenant with Abraham, in its primary impart. The prime im- 
port of the promise made to him was,* that believers of all nations should be his I 
children. We have no necessity, and of consequence no right, to understand tht 
qpostle in any other sense. 



j 



professing Chrtatfafts, unless this is," in fact, tiie covenant 
in which Christians stand/ 

We have now proyed &e continued existence of the 
covenant with Abraham, by inference — from its having 
never been a&^ijhdd^imm die ftftfgr* <9f tM4*4ftv&aHM» 
and from the ceMurr&tt ttMmtnyoftfouWdbfGod. 

We add again, that it is expressly; declared to be an ev- 
erlasting covenant. "I wfit establish ihjf foVeiiaht be. 
fweeti me and thee, ahd tht gfcfed aftfe* thae ? tot aft ivet*- 
ta sting covenant; to be a God tititd thae, and to thy £&& 

After thee." (Gen. *V1L IV it i&dso teferad to, in thfe 
New If estaittwit, as to exist Jbrtoer. " Jfe hath holpefc 
his servant Israel, in femetnbftiiCft of hts toerfcjr, as fife 
spake to oiif fathe«, to Abr<&am> attd to his sted fortbe?.* 
(Luke L 55.) We have AiorefotfeY ptoved, thdt this cov- 
enant Comprises! the cwmdnt df gfaie. So 16% there- 
fore, as the redeemed subjtcMbf&ade ddhtinufe id gldiyi 
the coyenaht With Abraham mtilt continue in effect* it 
toriil without doubt be* stripped 6f its exterfidt appendages* 
Whefi th£se have become unnecessary; at the end of time ; 
but the essentials of it wilt remain in full fdrcfi forevtr. 
I To this argument Mr. t. objects, that the ferift eoeri 
tasting is dften used to express a tefnporafy duration, fff 
ihay be so used in the covenant with Abraham, ft* 18.J— «• 
The term everlasting is never txterally used to eipress si 
temporary duration ; and we have no right to depart frorii 
its literal acceptation without manifest necessity. Where t 
(hen, is the necessity of departing from it, in the case un- 
der consideration ? To take for granted Hie existence of 
such ftecessity, is to take for granted the very point iii 
dispute.— In short, till this necessity can be pointed out, 
it win be deemed a sound argument ift favour of the per- 
petuity of the covenant with Abraham, that if is deofcrfed? 
ta be everlasting. * 



< 



> > 



i 
i 

i 



- -,,.- --, - -_ 



e« 



ifeciriotf III. 

7Xe Infants qf believing, covenanting Parents are in a 
sense Members of the Visible C/iurch. 

THIS is our second inference from the fact already es- 
tablished, that the visible church has been under both dis- 
pensations the same body. It is not disputed that infants 
were constituted members of the church of Israel. They 
were embraced in the arms of the everlasting covenant, 
and entitled to all the privileges of which their age was ea- 
iable.. If> then, the visible church is, at present, the same 
oody with ancient Israel, the children of believing, cove* 
nanting parents are still, in a similar sense } members of the 
church. , Nq person, who admits the premises, can deny 
the justness of this conclusion.-— The truth it embraces is 
. capable of being established by a variety of considerations. 

I. Children are still connected in covenant with their 
covenanting parents.— It is undeniable, that the covenant 
formerly embraced not only parents, but their children. 
Its requirements resgected them. Its promts reached 
them. Abraham must circumcise his children as well as 
himself. He must " command his children and his house- 
hold after him,° as well as pufsue himself the path of duty. 
And, on the other hand, God promised to be their God as 
, well as his. This covenant connexion of children with 
their parents is recognized in every part of the Old Testa- 
ment. A multitude of passages to this purpose might ea- 
sily be adduced.*— But whatever Covenant connexion 
children formerly enjoyed, the children of believing parents 
enjoy still. We have proved that the covenant with Abra- 
. ham is still in force ; the covenant of the church has ever 
been the same. If the Jewish parent was bound in cove-: 
Bant to bring up his children for God, the Christian parent 
is under similar bonds. If the Jewish parent could plead 
a promise for his offspring, the Christian parent can plead 
the same. f € The promise is to you and to your children." 
(Acts ii. 39.) This covenant connexion of children with 

* See particularly Deutr vii. 9, xxx. 6, and xxxi* 12, 13 ; Ps. ixxvii* 26, Ixrrifi* 
5—7, ciii, 17, 18, cxii. 1, 2 ; Prov. xx. 7, xxii. 6, xxiii. 13, 14, xxix. 17 ; Is.' 

xB|. 3,4, lis. 21, tar. S3; Je* nsii. 39 ; Mid. ir. G, fcc. 



i 



157 . 

their parents folly establishes a connexion between such 
children and the church. 

2. It is evident from propkecy,PhsX children must, un- 
der the present dispensation, be connected with the visible 
church. It is predicted that at a certain period, probably 
near the Millennium, "nations shall be born" to the church ; 
" nations shall flow to it ;" " the kingdoms of this world* 
shall become the kingdoms of Christ," &c* Was there 
ever a nation or fringdom which contained no children ? 
Manifestly these predictions can never be in their full ex* 
tent accomplished, if children have no connexion with the 
church of Christ.*— Jeremiah, speaking with an ultimate 
reference to the restoration of Israel " in the latter days, 
says, " their children shall be as aforetime." (Jet. xxx. 20 t ' 
24. ) The childrert of these converted Jews, whose church* 
standing will undoubtedly be similar to that of converted 
Gentiles, must then " be, as aforetime," members of the, 
visible church. 

3. That the children of covenanting parents are stHl in 
a sense members of the visible church, is also evident front 
declarations in the New Testament.— Some of our Sa- 
viour's friends, on a certain time, " brought unto him in* 

JhntSf that he would touch them. And when his disciples 
saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus said, Safer little 
children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of 
such is the kingdom of God." ((^ukexviii. 15, 16.) it can- 
not be denied that these were literally little children. They 

* are expressly called infants; they were brought unto Christ 
in their parents* arms, and.they were taken upin his arms and 
blessed.! But " of such is the kingdom of God." What does 
the phrase, " kingdom of God" denote ? Does it denote the 
kingdom of future gtpry? If little children belong to this king- 
dom, they belong to Christ, and ought to be members of his 
church on earth. Or does it denote, according to its most 
usual signification in the four evangelists, the visible church? 
In this sense, it is explicitly in our favour, and needs no 
comment. " Suffer little children to come unto me, and 
forbid them riot ; for of such is my visible church." ^-In- 

_ order to evade this argument, Mr. J. contends thfit the 
phraseology will admit of another construction. * Of suck 

i i$ the kingdom of God"— not, says, he, " of such in age or 

* h, Ixvi. $, 11 » ; Rev. xi. 15. t Compare Mattfa. xix. 13, and Mark x. 16/ 



m 

ty and docility of disposition." (P, 30, }r-r Suppose we ad* 
&\t this ^erpflefttfion. Mttte shtffhfcii, then, have a " <&* 
pQstiian" Jt M flior^ *?»##r #f &w* f " which ^te lion ^jr 
M&ww, anc| yrithpttf mwk wm con bejkfedjbr heaven. 
\Vi\\ it pot fallow &$£ they are & fbr the church of God 
qx\ earth ? 1$ the ©Jweb below holier than the church a* 
hpy? ?-^This kj&i^retatioB, however, is not admitted. It 
•$xes th^ irtmort absurdity on our Saviour's conduct 
4i Why should he be vwg (mgff with his disciples for for- 
fckkUng i^w^ «* ymrs to be brought |o him/' because 
911 huaibte disposition was necessary in jrraum persons* to 
fit thegi fpr his kingdom ? In short, the interpretation is 
forced 3pd JflpcifuJ in the extreme, and probably never 
wq\M have recited* had it not been needed to support a 
ipvpiyite hypothec* 

Qw &vipHr» at another time, having taken a little child 
in his arms, said to his disciples-—" Whosoever shall re- 
reive oaf; of $wh children in my mme f receiveth me." 
(JjjfoXvk $%.\ What am we to understand by receiving 
4|i(tlf sh&L ** Cfekt 1 * name? Let our Savour be Us 
Q^a rotoipmtQr, Wfcbip three «r four verses, he says a- 
ga^T-T- 4 ' WhosoevCT aball give you a cup of water to drink, 
« my. mwt> k&vmt ye kfibng to Chtisi," fee (V, 41.) 
^pjrecfw«.ajyiittl^ child in Chris?* name, is, therefore, tor 
receive it, fetajtw it belongs 4q Christ. Is not the mem? 
fca$hip ofT Uttte children, ia this, passage, incofttestably es* 
feblip^4f 

Tfee apQ§tfe Paul wrote, to his Corinthian brethren as 
follows; *tThe unbelieving hu^baad is sanctified by the 
W&*fiwi the unbdieying wife & sanctified by the Jwsband ; 
el^e wsre yo«ir children unetean ; but now are they Ao^.'N 
(1 Cer* viit 14)^-?It is.pbvious to remark, that if children 
" are hojy when only one parent is, a heliever* they must cer- 
tainly be hply •whjei) both parents are believers. Hence aU 
tfee chUdfea of believieg parents in Corinth, and indeed all 
the children of such parents throughout the earth, arc, by 
divine authority, here pronounced holy. But in what 
sense ? The term holy is used in>only two senses in the 
sacred writings. It always expresses either an internal or 

*Dr> Calk, a distinguished Baptist, ^honestly concede?, that the phrase, "of* 
9ttc\" refers to ivfanU in ycfLrs, (Reftpfttionii qo WajJG* p. 4*1.) 



6* 

{ctternaly a real or a relative holiness. It Is not pretended 
that the children of believers are really and internally holy. 
The holiness ascribed to them is therefore a visible or reL 
mtwe holiness. They are called holy, because of their pe- 
culiar appropriation to' God. They are called holy, because 
f£ their connexion rvith the visible church*-^— But Mr. I. 
objects, that the sgme holiness which belongs to the child, 
is ascribed to the unbelieving parent. He "is sanctified?*. 
by the believer. (P. 31.)~~Is this the case? The word &>- 
iy is an adjective*-** part of speech which characterizes* 
The passive verb, "is sanctified^* is entirely different. 
This, to be sore, expresses an effect ; but it may not ex* 
tend to character. One or two examples wiU make the 
idea .familiar. We often pray that affliction* might be 
sanctified, The intention is not that they should be made 
holy afflictions. "Every creature of God is good, and 
nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving y 
for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." ( 1 Tim* 
iv. 4, 5.) Every creature of God does not ip this way be- 
come a holy creature* Neither does the unbelieving pa- 
rent become a holy parent, in any legitimate acceptation of 
the term, by being united in matrimony with one who be- 
lieves* He is sanctiled by or (In) to die believer, as eve- 
ry creature is sanctified by the word of God and prayer* 
but the whole, dbcourse of the aposde proceeds on the sup- 
position, that he still is both really and visibly unholy. < % ■ 

What is Mr. Jubson** interpretation of this passage? 
He supposes the apostle to conclude, from the acknowl- 
edged fact that their children were not unclean, but holy, 
that the unbeliever was so sanctified to the believer, that 
their H cohabitation was lawful marriage." (F. 31.)— If* 
respect to what, was the fawfitlness of their marriage ever 
questioned f Not, surely, in respect to the civil laws of - 
tkvmth. The believer never supposed be violated these 
laws, by continuing his connexion with the unbeliever/ 
The Question,' *hen 4 must have respected the fisws of God. 
The Corinthian brethren knew, that God's ancient cove- 
nant people hafl been forbidden not only -to be joined with 
strangers, but to continue such Connexions after they were' 
formed. (Ezrg x. 3.) They knew, also, that the offspring 
of these illicit connexions had been considered qndeafv 
out of covenant, and as not belonging to " the holy seed." 

-. \ ■ . " • 



to 

(Ezra ix. %) Let it be granted, then, if Mr. J. wishes it, 
that the Corinthian believers, who were married to unbe- 
lievers, called in question the legality of continuing such con- 
nexions ; and that the apostle, for their satisfaction, referred 
them to the well-known fact, that their children had hot 
been rejected as unclean, and out of covenant, but had 
been publickly recognized as branches of the holy seed. — 
If this interpretation is at all different from ours, it certain- 
ly is not less favourable to our cause. In either case, the 
jnembership of infants is clearly established.* 

4. The epithets and phrases applied in scripture to the 
children of covenanting parents, clearly evince their mem- 
bership with the visible church* They are spoken of gen- 
erally in the same terms with their parents. Are cove- 
nanting parents styled believers j so are their children. 
(Matth. xviii. 6.) Are they called disciples; so are their 
children. (Matth. x. 42.) Are they called the children of 
God ; so are their children. (Ez. xvi. 21.) Are they 
members of the kingdom of God ; so are their children. 
(Mark x. 15.) Are they called holy ; so are their chil- 
dren. (1 Cor. vii. 14.) Are they called saints; so are 
their children. f In short , if it can be proved from the terms 
and phrases used in relation to believing parents, that they 
are members of the church of Christ, it can be proved 
with equal clearness that their children are members with 
them. 

5. There is evidence from facts recorded in the New 
Testament, that the children of believing parents are in a 
sense members of the church. In the first days of the 
new dispensation, believers were a body by themselves, 
were Called the church, and their property was vested in a 
common stock. Were not children associated with their 
parents ? Would the Christian parent vest all his property 
in the common stock, and cast his infant children on the 
mercy of the world ? The idea is revolting. It is beyond 
all controversy, that in these early days children were as- 
sociated and connected with the visible church of Christ. 

Another fact which deserves notice is, that the Jewish 
converts continued, for many years, to circumcise their 

. • See Pools, Hcitrt, Gttise, Doddridge, and Scott, on this (Jkputed pa»» 
fage ; also, Austin's View of the Church, pp. 231—236. 

1 * Compare Eph. U 1, with vi. J. See Lduputoite DfecoqiBes oa Bap- jv £& 



ft 

children, under the immediate charge and direction of tHE 
apostles* This is expressly admitted by Mr. J. (p. 26,) 
and is indeed too evident to be denied. Nearly thirty 
years after the ascension of Christ, the great church at Je- 
rusalem, which consisted of "many thousands," and was 
under the pastoral charge of the holy apostle James, were 
not a little disgusted when they were informed of Paul, 
that he had taught the Jews " not to circumcise their chil- 
dren." (Acts xxi. 20, 21.) What does this fact prove? 
Undoubtedly, that the children of these believing Jewish 
parents were members with them of the visible church of 
Christ. Had the Jewish and Christian churches been dis- 
tinct ; had their covenant and ordinances been distinct ; 
and had it been the intention of the apostles forever to sep- 
arate children from the church of God ; they never would 
have been instrumental in the circumcision of these chil- 
dren. They would as soon have encouraged the convert* 
ed Gentiles to persist in the worship of their idol gods. 

6. If any thing could add to this weight of evidence in 
favour of the church- membership of children with their 
believing parents,, the testimonyxrf history might be ad? 
vantageously adduced. It is certain that, from the Earliest 
ages of Christianity to the present time, this sentiment has 
been constantly and almost universally maintained. It was 
taught by Hermas, whose name is mentioned by Paul, 
(Rom. xvi.,14,) and who is said to have written his Pastor 
before John wrote his gospel. He saw certain stones, 
which had. been taken out of the deep, and fitted into the 
building-— the church ; and was told by an angel, that these 
represented members in the first or infhnt age. " All m- 
fants" says he, " are in honour with the Lord, and are es- 
teemedfirsiqfall"* — It was taught by Justin Martyr, 
who wrote within about forty years of the apostolick age* 
" Several persons among us," says he, "of sixty or seven- 
ty years old, who were made disciples to Christ in their i/i- 
Jiincy, do cor^inue uncorrupt."f These infants must have 
been made the disciples of Christ, and become members qf 
hp churchy full twenty years before the death of the apos- 
tle John. — The same also was taught by Ire n-eus. Speak- 
ing of Christ, he says, "He passed through every age. 
For infants he became an infant, that he might sanctify in* 

<TZa Ausm> View «f the Churck^p. 241. t In Towooon, oa Inf. B*p. p. 31* 



.72 

Jdnfa"* Whether internal of external sauctifioation i$ 
h€tt htteiided, the Mem&ership af infants is strongly im^ 

plied* 

From these early days down to the present period, we 
find infant membership constantly and almost universally 
asserted* It has been admitted by the Greeks, the Latins, 
the Episcopalians, and by most denominations of Protest* 
ant Dissenters* 

Tathis body of evidence on the Subject, Mr. J. finally 
objects, that out principles and practice are at variance- 
(P. 31#)— *We do not altogether admit > and we need not 
altogether deny, the charge. To our own Master we stand 
er fell* When he returns to the faith from which he has 
departed, and is ready to allow the membership of infants, 
ifc vn\Y more immediately concern him to inquire, what is 
tfee Drooet treatment of mfent members. 



f Szcttos IV. 

m 

JBoptim is now* suBttittlted in the place of Cir&imcision* 

J THIS is our third inference from the feet, that the visi- 
ble church has been under both dispensations the same.—-' 
•^Circumcision was anciently an instituted pre-requiske to 
a regular standing in the visible ehurcfa."f Those who 
were horn, members must be circumcised, or be cut off- 
from their people- And those who were proselyted, must. 
be circumebed, before they could be regular members.— 
hfotwkhstanding the manifest correctness of this position, 
Mr. J. cannot pass it without cavil. " Circumcision," 
says he, " was not pre-requisite to a regular standing in 
tiie church ; otherwise females vxre not regular members " 
()?.27.)~The force of this objection may be instantly 
tested, and on his awn* principles. '< Circumcision/' he 
observes, " chiefly signified^ that the subject was interest- 
ed in, that covenant which God made with Abraham." (P. * 
27. J Had Jewish females, then> no interest in that cove- 
nant which God made with their father Abraham ? Again, 
" Circumcision separated the Jew*s from the Gentile 

*Itt Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i.chap. m. » , 

t Dr. Wouc^tkb's Letter?, p. COr * 



\ 



JS". 

^dricl." (P. 27.) And were nQt the Jewish females sepa* 
frated from the Gentile world ?— If Mr. J. will not affirm, 
in face of all evidence* that Jewish females had no interest 
in the covenant with Abraham, and no separation from the 
idolatrous Gentiles, he must admit that the objection we 
have here considered is perfectly futile* Circumcision 
was, beyond all controversy! prerequisite to a regular 
standing in the church under the former dispensation* Is 
not baptism prerequisite to a regular standing in the 
church under the present dispensation? Will Mr. J. admit 
any to a regular standing without it ?*-»We have before 
jproved that the church has ever been the same. Since, 
then, baptism is now, what circumcision formerly w^s, pre* 
requisite to a regular standing in this church, it is perfect* 
ly impossible to avoid concluding, that the former is sub* ' 
stituted for the latter* 

The same truth may b6 conclusively argued from the fact 
established in these pages,* that the covenant with Abraham it 
Still the covenant of the church. Of this covenant, circumcis- 
ion was formerly the token. This is decided by God himself. 
(Gen. xvii. 11.) But circumcision is now abolished ; and 
baptism, an ordinance of the same church, and of course 
under the same covenant, has been instituted. Has not 
baptism, then, taken the place of circumcision* as the visi- 
ble token of the covenant with Abraham ? In order to de- 
termine this inquiry, we must determine whether these or-, 
dinances are of similar import. Merely the external cere* . 
mony is of no consequenqe in either. The relation they 
hold, both to each other and to the covenant, must be de- 
termined entirely by their internal signification* ! 

Circumcision, as a token of the covenant, was both a sign 
and a $eal.\ As a. signet was emblematical of thecircumcis- 
ion of the heart, or regeneration. " Circumcision is of the. 
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." (Rom. ii. 29.) As 
a seed, it confirmed " the righteousness of faith," or the cov- 
enant of grace. It proclaimed to the world, that all who had 
voluntarily submitted to it, .with suitable feelings of heart, 
were entitled to every fayour promised in this covenant, 
and especially that their faith was imputed for righteous- 
ness. Such was the import of circumcision. Is hot that 

• See Section ii. Part ii.. * ' - " 

tThis )s certain from Rom iv. 11, to wfeich the reader is referred-, 

10 



t 

4^ baptism precisely ^similar ? This, too, is both 9 ^^ and . 

a. seat. As a. stgri, it is an emblem of the washing of* 
regeneration, or Ae baptism of the Holy Ghost. * It 
therefore signifies the same as circumcision. Does it not 
also seal the same ? Those who submit to this ordi~ 
nance with suitable feelings of heart, may be humbly sure 
that their faith is impmed for righteousness, and that they 
are entitled to all the blessings of the covenant of grace. — 
We have now seen, that when the ancierft token of the 
covenant with Abraham was abolished, an ordinance was 
established in the church, and appended to the same cov- 
enantj of precisely a similar import. How, then, is it 
possible to resist the conclusion, that this latter is substi- 
tuted for the former t How shall we avoid concluding, that 
baptism is now, what circumcision formerly was, the token 
iff the covenant with Abraham ! ' 

To what has been said, Mr. J. objects, that "circumcis- 
ion, as it was commanded to be administered among the 
Jews, ,y did not H signify that the subject was regenerated.'* 
(P. 27.) Nor* have W& said it did. We have said that 
circumcision in the flesh \Vas aft emblem of the circumcis- 
ion of the heart, or regeneration ; and that all who volun- 
tarily submitted to this ordinance, according to its tr&e im- 
" port, must be regenerated persons. This is widely differ- 
ent from saying, that circumcision certainly signified that 
the subjects of it were regenerated.— Mr. 1. says of bap- 
tism, that the subjects of it hereih "'signify their fellowship 
t ^ith Christ in death and resurrectfon, and their being' 
washed from sin." (P. 27.) Does, then, baptism certain- 
ty signify that all the subjects of it really have w fellowship 
. with Christ," and have been " washed from sin ?" Did it 
„ Signify this, when administered to Simon Magus ?* 
* The scriptures clearly countenance the idea, that bap- 
tism is substituted in the place of circumcision. Writing 
to the PhiiippianSj the apostle says, <f Beware of the con* 
cision" (those persons who lay an exorbitant stress on the 
rite of circumcision,) u for tve"-*- we who haVe been bap- 
tized — u are the circumcision, which worship God in the 
spirit." (iii. 2, 3.) And to the Colossians be say$, " Ye 

; * Mr. J. represents baptism "as an act pf wership." (P. £*-) Is ftis consists 
cut? In an act of worship, {he subject must be active. In baptism, he always is, 
aad 19 represented to be, entirely passive* " Axhe^ and be baptucdJ* 



t * 



75 

pre circumcised with the circumcision made without hands,' 
in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the cir- 
cumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism." (ii. 1L 
12.) The force of his language is, " Ye are circumcised, 
being baptized '."-*— Mr. J. observes respecting this latter 
passage, that " since the apostle is here speaking of spirit^ 
ual circumcision and spiritual baptism, both of which had 
been received by the Colossians," it is impossible to infer 
from it, " that external baptism* has come in the place o£ 
external circumcision." (r. 28* )— We admit, that the &- 
postle is here speaking of spiritual circumcision and spirit** 
ual baptism ; and he represents them to be the same f 
Since, then, these tyro ordinances are spiritually the samc y 
and since the one was instituted in the church on the re*, 
moval of the other \ we see no difficulty in drawing a con- 
clusive inference, that the one is now substituted in the 
place of the other, * 

That the primitive fathers believed and taught the sub- 
stitution of baptism in the room of circumcision, will be 
abundantly evident from the following quotations. 

Justin Martyr. " We have not received this carnal 
circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision ; and we havp 
-received it by baptism. It is allowed to all pet 'sons' '^ifi* 
fants and adults — " to receive it in the same way."* 

Cyph %an: iC Christ has given us baptism, the spiritual 
circumcision ,"f 

Austin , " We may make an estimate how much bap- 
tism avails infants, by the circumcision which God's people 
formerly rectived."J 

Basil. " A Jew does not delay circumcision, .because 
of the threatening, that every soul that is not circumcised 
the eighth day shall be cut off from his people ; and dost 
thou put off the circumcision made xvithout handset which 
is performed in baptism, when thou hearest our Lord him- 
self say, Verily, verily I say unto you, except one be born 
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God ?»* 

•In Dr f Worcester's Letters to Dr. Baldwin, p. 110, The dates of the 
fathers here quoted are as follow : — Justiw wrote within about 40, CTPR14N with* 
in 150, and Acstur, Basil, and Chrysostom, within 270 jean of the apostoliclc 
age. t In Reed's Apology, p. 274, 

\ In Boerwicjt's Discourse on Inf. Bap. p. 25. 

6 This application of the phrase — u circumcision made without hands"— and rf 
similar one in the succeeding quotation from Chbtsostow, show fcowthe father* 
understood the apostle in Col, ii. 11, 12. 



7$ 

Ch*ys«*stowu <€ ®W circumcision, I mean the grace Qf 
baptism, gives cure without pain, and proci^res to us a 
thousand benefits. And it has no determinate time, as the 
ancient circumcision had; but one that is in the very be- 
ginning of his age," [surely, then, an infant ,] *< or one that 
is in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, may re* 
<ceive this circumcision made without Aa/wfe."*~r«— Itis de- 
cisive proof that the primitive fathers considered baptism 
in the place qf circuincision, that in the earjy days of the 
council of Carthage,! nearly seventy bishops were con- 
vened to tletermine whether baptism might be administer- 
ed to children §QQn«f thaji qfrcumcjsion, or previous to the 
eighth day.| 

We shall conclude this section, by noticing some objec- 
tions which have been urged against the sentiment, that 
baptism is now substituted in the place of circumcision* 

Mr. J. objects, that this substitution is not urged, as, 
might have been expected, in answer to those Judaizing 
teachers who tyere for enforcing circumcision on tJhe Gen- 
tiles. (P. 26.)--*The$e teachers wished to. enforce on Gen- 
tile converts, not Pnly circumcisipn, but the whole ritual 
|aw. " Ye must be circumcised, and keep the faxy of Mo*, 
tes." (Acts xv. 5.) It vyould, then, neither have satisfied 
their minds, nor silenced their opposition, to have urged 
that baptism had been substituted for circumcision. The 
grand difficulty |»ad still remained"^" IV must keep the 
jaw". It ^P^ 8 *? l ^ at i as far as the proposed answer Would 
have availed with these teachers, it was really given them, 
It. was authoritatively detprmihed in apostblick council, 
that the GentUe believers-r^those who had been baptized— 
toad no need to be circumcised, (Acts xv f 54.) 

Mr. J. al§o tells us, that the Jewish believers knew notlu 
Ing of this substitution ; for ** they continued, under the 
direction of the apostles, to circumcise their children." (I\ 
26.)-*- Why did any of the apostles encourage or suffer 
their Jewish converts to cirqumci.se their children ? Not, 

•In Dr. Worcester's Letters to Dr. Baldwin, p. 118. 
t A. D. 253, or 153 years after the apostolick 'age. 

\ It is always urged by those Baptists who advocate close communion, that un- 
Jjaptized persons should be prohibited the Lord's table, because uncircumcised 
persons 'were prohibited the Passover. If this argument has* anv force,. £* implies 
the substitution of baptism in the place of circumcision. See Booth's Apology, 



Ml PI I ■ ' HI 



* 



77 

sjtnrely, because they considered circumcision still binding. 
They did it from a commendable tenderness, in things in- 
different, to the long established customs and prejudices of 
their brethren, And this tenderness, which would prompt 
fbem for a time to tolerate, or even encourage cirbumcis- 
ion, must certainly prompt them not to enlarge oq the sub* 
Stitutiqi} of baptism in its place. 

It is also urged, that baptism cannot have come in the 

Elace of circumcision, since the latter was applied to none 
ut males. (R. l7.)-rBut why was circumcision applied 
exclusively to males ? Not, surely, because of any thing 
in its internal import, which unfitted it to be administered 
tofemales ; for these were included in the covepaqt with 
Abraham, and (notwithstanding they bore not the external 
mark) were really of the circumcision, as much as the 
males.* The only reason why circumcision was not ap- 
plied to females, was because of the peculiar nature of the 
fxternql ceremony* God in infinite wisdom instituted * 
token of his covenant under the former dispensation, which 
it was impossible, in the nature of the thing, should be ap, 

Elied to females. In the exercise of the same wisdom, h$ 
as instituted a token under the present dispensation, which 
Can be applied to females as well as males, Because he did 
not perform an impossibility once, may he not, then, perform, 
a possibility noiy ? Qr, in the words of Mr. Fl a v$ t, " can? 
not baptism stand in the place of circumcision, because it 
answers all its ends,* with an advantage ?"-f.^L T W$ admit 
that, under the former dispensation, a distinction obtained 
between males and females, in respect to some divine in- 
stitutions* But tljis distinction is now generally repealed, 
* c There is neither Jew nor Greek ; there is neither bond 
nor free ; ttjere is neither male nor female*" (Gal. in, 28.) 
Both sexes participate equally in Christ, and may have e- 
qual access to all the outward ordinances qf hip kingdom.% 
It is objected again, that if baptism has come in the 
place of circumcision, then servant^ as well as children, 

* God speaks of the Jewish daughters, as his covenant children. (Ezek. xvi. 20* 
21. See also Deut. xxix. 11, 12.) No uncircumci^ed person was allowed to eat 
<>f the Passover. Yet females partook of it, as well as males. (Ex. xii. 47, 48.) 

# 

t Works, vol. ii. p. 456. 

J* 4 The law made a difference between male and female, the males only being 
circumcised ; but it is not so now." (Henry on Gal. iii. 28.) See also, to the 
fame purpose, PooL£, Guis«, Pqdpbhigi:, and Mac^xqut, on the place. 



78 




(P. 17.) 

southern planters and their slaves has been nrged in this 
connexion with pecuIiatf)athos.— Certain practices were 
tolerated under the former dispensation, which are at pres- 
ent utterly disallowed* Such were polygamy slavery, &c* 
4€ Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, suffered 
them. At the times of this ignorance, God winked*"* 
Unless it can be proved, that the New Testament authorv 
Izes the holding of slaves, and of consequence, the slave 
trade, the case, so far as it is objectionable, can never occur* 
It is still farther objected, that on the ground we have 
taken, baptism cannot be lawfully administered to children 
Sooner or later than the eighth day. " He that is eight 
days old, shall be circumcised among you." (P. 17.)— 
The reason why circumcision was enjoined on the eighth 
day, is clearly expressed in the ritual. M If a woman have 
borne a man child, she shall be unclean seven days ; and 
on the eighth day he shall be circumcised" (Lev. xii. 2, 3.) 
On account of the mothers uncleanness, ner child could 
not lie at her breast, or even touch her, till after seven days, 
without contracting ceremonial pollution* Qn the eighth 
day it must be circumcised. The language of the cove* 
nant was then virtually this—'* Let the chili be circumcised 
as soon as possible" SucU is its language still, in respect 
to baptism. » 



Section V. 

The Infant Children of believing, covenanting Parents are 

to be baptized. . 

^ 

THIS, it will be recollected, is the great point in dis- 
pute. And this is a proposition, the truth of which may 
be conclusively argued from what has been established in 
each of the preceding sections. 

If the Christian church is the same with the church of 
Israel, in which children were visibly dedicated to God, 
then it must be concluded that they are to be dew* 

CATED STILL. . 

, * Matfh, xix. £ ; Acts xvH. 30. 



If the covenant with Abraham, the token of which be* 
Ibnged* to the offspring of those interested in it, is still the 
covenant of the visible church, then the members of 
this church are still under sole&n obliga- 
tions to apply this token to their infant 
Children. 

If the children of believing parents are still members of 
the visible church, as they were members of the church of 
Israel, then they must be proper subjects or that 

RITE WHICH IS AN INSTITUTED PREREQUISITE TO 

REGULAR membership/* 

Above all $ if baptism is now substituted in the place of 
circumcision, which was applied by a divine command to 
the seed of covenanting parents, then the same divine 
Command binds the covenanting parent to ap- 

ftY BAPTISMAL WATER TO HIS INFANT OFFSPRlNG.f 

Here is the foundation of Infant Baptism;- -a founda- 
tion firm and immoveable as die word and covenant of 
HIM who cannot lie. On this broad bottom, the ordi- 
nance, without doubt, will rest unshaken, till the end of 
time. ' , 

What remains is to introduce some collateral evidence 
in favour of the proposition here established, that the chil- 
dren pf believing, covenanting parents are proper subjects 
of baptism. 

1. The sentiment contained in this proposition is highly: 
rational. Would not a good Prince wish that the children 
of a beloved and faithful friend should be placed in a pecu* 
liarly near relation to himself? And shall it not be sup- 
posed that the Best of Beings will regard with tokens of 

iculiar favour the children of his covenant friends ? Will 
not grant them some special pledge of love ? Will he 
take his people under the shadow of his wings, and make 
no special provision for the M'elfare of their offspring ? In 
his care of the sheep, will he forget the lambs oif his nock ? 
-—And how reasonable » that the pious parent should wish 

* J 4 Let it be proved**' says Dr. Gill, " that infants are, or ought to-be mem* 
Iters of gospel churches, and we are ready to admit them," i. e. to baptism. (An«r 
swer to Dicjrursojr, p. 89>) 

, t Dr. Hopkins represent*fthose who require another divine command to satis- 
fy them on this point, as imitators of " Balaam ; who did not rest satisfied with 
the decision which God had once made, respecting his going to curse Israel, but. 
lequired that he should speak again, if he really did forbid his doing it." (System 
of Divinity, vol. ii. p. 318.) 



4q 

to place his childrefc' uttdet the special cate arid Jarotectfojfi 
of Jehovah : that he should wish publickly to dedicate* 
them to the God tvho gave them, and bind himself by sol- 
emn vows to bring them xip for him.* 

2. The analogy of God's cbvfenant dealings in past ages 
evinces the propriety of infant baptism. In all the cove- 
nants he has hitherto made with men* children ha Ve been 
included with their covenanting parents* Thus it was in 
the covenant With Adam ; in the covenant tvith Noah ; in 
the covenant with Abraham } and in the covenant with 
David. He dealt favourably with the children of Lot, for 
their father's sake ; and he declares hitnself a God keeping 
covenant with his friends* " to a thousand generations."f 
How very unlikely, thfen, let the covenant of the Christian 
church be what it may* that God has swerved from the in- 
variable econoittjr of his covenant dealing in other ages, 
, and has now cut off children from any kind of connexion 
in covenant with their believing parents ! 

3. Infant baptism must be considered ftgfiptufal ; sincfc 
otherwise the present dispensatibn is less highly privi- 
leged than that . which has passed away* It is a predous 
privilege to die enlightened* Christian parent, to bring his 
; beloved children to Christ ; publickhr resign them into his 
hands ; promise to educate them according to his precepts ; 
and see affixed to them the token of his holy covenant- 
Believing parents formerly enjoyed this privilege* How 
unreasonable, then, the supposition, that they are bereft of 
it now 1 Under this last, and brightest* and best dispensa- 
tion of the gospel* when it might be expected that privi- 
leges were uniformly increased* and burthens diminished; 
how unreasonable the supposition* that believers are cut off 
from an invaluable privilege* which was secured to them 
eveti by the Mosaick ritual ! % 

^ 4. Had children been deprived of their connexion with 

the church, and interest in the covenant, under the Chris* 

* ... , i •..-'• 

* The h'ght of nature instructed some of the wiser heathen nations to f>ractis* 
a rite wtath resembles infant baptism. "It was the custom of the Romano, on 
tlte ninth day from the child's birth, (which was called tHe liistrical, or day of 
fnurifieatUm,) for its friends and relations to bring it to the temple, and before, th* 
til tars of the gods to give it a name, and recomraend% to the protection of,«oro# 
tutelar deiiy. A ceremony of the same nature was also per/armed among the 
ffrevks." (Midbleton's Life of Ckjero, vol. i. p. 6.) 

- 1 1 Cor. xv. 32 ; Gon* vi. 18, and xvii. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxh 7 ; Gen- xix< 12^ 
Deut. vii. 9. - «$See fcev* xai. 3* * 



~~w 



i* 

dispensation, bektving Jewish parents, In die days of 
the apostles, would undoubtedly have cdmptain&d. Many 
thousands of the Jews in these flays believed, who were all 
zealous of the four* Tertacioiis of their former burthens, 
would mey cheerfoHy relinquish their accustomed pfwt- 
ieges ? Prepared to '* Wlrangle for a rite, quarrel for a fast* 
and almost fight Ibr a new mftdft/ 9 * would they consent u> 
see their children excluded the covenant of promise, and 
„ Ait off from tbelr accustomed connexion with the church, 
of drodi without a strtiggl? ? Vet we never hear a Word of 
complaint. There never was any objection to the gospel* 
by friend at foe* on grourtd like this. We arrive, there- 
fore, to a moral tertainfy that under the present dispensa- 
tion, as tinder the ancient, the children of covenanting pa* 
rente art to be publickly dedicated to God* 

5. The Jewish pfosefyte baptism furnishes u$ with & 
fcdnchisive argument in favour of the baptism pf children 
with their parents, — It is a fafet, that in our Saviour's time, 
and for ages previous, the Jews had been accustomed not 
only to circumcise their proselytes, but also to baptize 
them v and to baptize not them only, but their children, 
with them* The reality of such a practice is implied in a 
question which was addressed to John, by those who had 
been sent from Jerusalem to ascertain who he Was. " Why 
b&ptizest ihottj m if thou be not the Christ, neither Elias^ 
neither that prophet ?"f (John i. 25.) # The inquiry was 
not, "What ttew rite is this?" but, "Why do you ad- 
minister it?" They had been uniformly acquainted with 
the ordinance of baptism f but if John was " not the Christy 
neither Elias, neither that prophet," they were ignorant of 
the autftority on which he had undertaken to baptize* 

This proselyte taptism most probably took its rise front 
die baptism of Israel " in the cloud and in the sea*" Jf 
the religion of Jews required the baptism of their wholp 
congregation in so miraculous ajmartner by God himself, 
they might reasonably conclude it required the baptism of 
♦hose who came over to it from the worship of idols,}; 

* P fc Edward^ Outdid Reason^ kc. p. e& 

tjn oto* interpretation of this passage, we follow Liohtfoot, Hbnrt, Po»D- 
fctiws, and Dr. Ada* ClA^rkk. BaptiMn fat prvselytum was denominated a- 

taong $e Jews Jlft) tfr3&> m distinction irom. fTU h^B> the wbfof 
ft* uHcleanne**. (LiGHTPpoT.) 

X Se* Wit nvs' Economy of thte Coreiipfs, to], iii. p. 387. 

11 






A 



85t 

As the existence of this proselyte baptism is denied by. 
Mr. Judson, (p. 32,) we wall be excused in our attempt 
to establish it by the following authorities. 

Babylonian Talmud.* "That was a common ax- 
iom, too^ ViDW nyo p» No man is a proselyte, until he 
be circumcised and baptized. — —They baptize a little 
proselyte" (an infant) " according to the judgment of the 
Sanhedrim."! 

Maimonides. " Whenever any heathen will betake 
himself, and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place 
himself under the wings of- the Divine Majesty, and take 
upon him the yoke of the law ; voluntary circumcision y 
<and baptism , and oblation are required. But if it be a wo- 
man, baptism and oblation."— This eminent Jew, speaking 
of the multitudes who were made proselytes in the reigns 
of David and Solomon, before. private men, says, the San- 
hedrim " would not cast them out of the church, because 
they had been baptized* ■ If an Israelite take .a Gentile 
child, or find a Gentile infant r and baptize it in the name 
of a proselyte, behold it is a proselyte, "f 

Dr. Lightfoot. " You see baptism inseparably joined 
to the circumcision of proselytes.— They 4>apt%zcd> also, 
young children with their parents, "f 

Dictionary of the Bible. ".A proselyte wias made 
by the observation of three ceremonies, if a male ; viz. cir- 
cumcision, washing, and oblation; but if ^female, then by 
two; washing and oblation." % 

Calmet. *" The Jews require three things ir\ a com- 
plete proselyte ; baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice ; but 
for women only baptism and sacrifice."^ 

Brown. " After the Jews had circumcised their prose- 
lytes, they washed them in water." $ 

Witsius. "When a Gentile became a proselyte of 
righteousness, three ceremonies were used, viz. circum* 
cision, baptism, and sacrifice." IT 

♦The Mishna, or text of this Talmud, " w&fc composed, according to the unan- 
imous testimony of the Jews, about the close of the second century*" (Encyclo- 
pedia, in article Talmud. ' Buck's Theol. Did. in eodem.) 

t In LightfooT 1 s Horse Hebraicse, on Matth. Hi. and xxviii. 

$ Compiled by Wilsow, Bagwell, and Syjksov. In art. Proselyte, 

, f Diet, of Bible, in art. Proselyte, J| Diet, of Bible*, in art. Proselyte, 

IT Economy of CovcB*nte, vol iii» p. 384> 



83 

V * 

Pride a ux. "The Jews, in our Saviour's time, wetfe 
very seduldus to proselyte the Gentiles to their religion \ 
and when thus proselyted, they were initiated by baptism, 
-sacrifice and drcuittcision."* 

Stackkouse. ^The custom of the Jews, in all ages, 
3ias beta to receive their heathen proselytes by baptism, as 
well as by sacrifice and circumcision, "f 

Dr. ~Wall. u Whenever Gentiles were proselyted to 
the Jewish religion, they were initiated by circumcision, 
the offering of sacrifice, and baptism. They were all bap* 
tized> mats and females, adults and infants. This was 
their constant practice % from the time of Moses to that of 
our Saviour^ and from that period to the present day."J 

Dr. An Ato Clarke. "Thferitpoftles knew well, that 
the Jews not only circumcised ine children of proselytes, 
tout ateo baptized them.— The children and even infants of 
proselytes were baptize^ among the Jews. They were in 
consequence reputed clean, and partakers of the blessings 
of the covenant.^ ' ^ 

To this mass' of testimony in favour of proselyte bap- 
tism^ what does Mr. J. oppose f Merely the opinions of 
Doctors Owen, Jennings, and Lardner ; and these 
opinions founded chiefly on the silence of certain Jewish 
writers respecting it. Of what force is this kind of nega- 
tive testimony, against that weight of positive evidence 
which we have adduced ? How easy to conceive that pros- 
elyte baptism might prevail, and yet no mention of it oc- 
cur in some particular Jewish writers. R 

Those who deny the existence of proselyte baptism in 
the days of our Saviour, are obliged to consider this rite 
an innovation in the religion of Jews. " It was mention- 
ed," says Mr. J. " in the Talmuds, as a novel and que** 

# Connex. of O. and N. Test. p. ii. fib. 5, p. 436*. 

t History of Bible, vol. 5, p- 286. 

J Hist, of Inf. Bap. Introduction, voL i. 

i Comment, on Mattb. xxviii. IS. See also Wetstsin, Comment, on Matth. 
iii. 16 ; Hjbkrt's Comment, on Matth. iii. 6, and John i. 25? Scott's Comment, 
on Matth. iij. 9 ; Doddridge's Lect, Prop. 154 ; LatHrgp's Discourses on Bnp. 
p. 49. 1 also find quoted to the same purpose Selden de Jure Nat. et Gent. 
lib. ii. cap. 2, 3 ; et de Socfesttonibus ad Leges Hebraeorom, cap. 26 ; et de 
Synedriis, lib. i. cap. 3 ; et Ajltingii Diss, de Proselytis, Thes. xxviL 

H Josbphus' account of the prose'yting of the Idumeans by Hircanus, if H 
does not imply, is at least consistent with, the Idea tfcat they ivere baptized. They 
submitted not only to circumcision, but tp " thtrett pf the /wish cwlom*." (An* 
tic|. lib; xiii. cap. 9, sec, S.) i 



tionabte practice*" (P. SSI) It is an observance which 
their Doctors have cqpttf? from a Christian ordinance*— 
This baptism can be certainly Weed to within less than a 
century of the apostolick age. Whey then, can suppose, 
that at this early period, when Christianity was " every 
where spoken against, 51 and was not suftciently established 
to invite the imitation of any, the lews, its most inveterate 
enemies, shpuki copy one of the sac^eats of the craci- 
fied Nazarene, and incorporate k among the standing or^ 
finances of their venerable lawgiver ? To those who have 
any knowledge of Jewish prejudices, th^ thing is utterly 
incredible^ 

We can how understand the commission which Christ 

five his disciples, wheiyhe, instituted t^e ordinance of 
hristian baptism, ?' Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them in the ^ame of the Father, of the Son, 
*nd of the Holy Ghost"* What kind of baptise is here 
intended t Mr. J. is undoubtedly correct in determining, 
4t that when Christ, in general t^nns, comm^xJed his apos* 
ties to baptize, he must haye iitfended, and they must have 
understood him to intend* that; kind of baptism tq whith . 
they had been accustomed " (P. 32.) What baptism was 
this ? tPe haqk proved it was # baptism qf children with 
their parent** fcenee, *<whep Christ* in general te^ms, 
commanded his apqstles to baptize* he must h^ve intend- 
ed, and they must hav^. u^nderstood him to intend^" a bap- 
tism which should fe f*c tended ty fluIdr^u^r^rrTkough JVta\ 
J. has aided us to this conch 1 siou* he is not deposed to ad* 
mit its correctness, Jle thinks the command to %wch (or, 
as he properly renders it, disciple} ail nations, limits the 
subsequent command to baptize. None must be baptized 
wlio are not first constituted disciples, (P* M*)^Tbis re- 
mark presents no very formidable objection, should ifo. 
justness be admitted. A disciple is without doubt a $chob 
ar 9 a learner. All, then, who have become Iwgnets in the 
things of Christ's kingdom, may with the utmost proprie- 
ty be denominated his disciples. Is not this the case with 
the children of faithful; covenanting parents? Ar? they 
not daily learning something of the Christian religion ?f-^ 
If this interpretation is not admitted— if the children of b$t 

*Mitife. xxTHi. 19. Thfe passage is Mr. Jfafc6&N f e text. 



lieving parents are in no sense disciphs ; then it coostdersy 
bh proportion of every nation cannot be made disciples^ 
3nd the injunction of our Saviour cannot be obeyed. 

6* Christ and his apostles taught and practised precisely 
ps we wight expect, on supposition chiliren are to b* bap- 
ti wd | but precisely what we might wot expect, on the 
contrary supposition* In order to determine what . we 
might, or might not, expect of Qhrist and his apostles, it 
will be necessary that we keep in mind the established cus- 
too>s of that period* in regard to the subject before us. In 
the Jewish church children had been uniformly connected 
with their parents. They were early given up to God* ' 
and stamped with the seal of hTs everlasting covenant. 
Ateo, the children of proselytes entered covenant with their 
parents, and were entitled to the initial rites of circumcision 
and baptism.— What> then, might be expected of Chri&t 
and his apostles, on supposition they intended *? £?' an 
tnd to these customs ? Not silence, certainly. Silence 
must have been a virtual approbation of them. They 
would have lost no opportunity of pressing a reform* 
They would have constantly condemned them in die se- 
verest terms* J)kl they pursue such a course ? Scarcely 
need we answer, Never, in any instance* But what might 
be expected of die Saviour and his apostles, on supposition 
they intended the established customs should be continued $ 
Not, indeed, that they would enjoin them by express pre* 
cepU. This woyld be to enjoin expressly what every one 
already understood and practised* They would be likely 
often to utter expressions >vhich implied their pleasure. 
They would be likely often to allude to the accustomed 
connexion of children with the f church, as a thing which 
merited and received their approbation. They would be 
likely* frpm time to tune, as occasions, occurred, to bap-. 
tbe households, qn a profession of the parents 9 faith.— 
Need it be said, that this is the precise course they pur* 
sued ?— Oqr Saviour directed his disciples to. speak peace 
to that house or jamily, over which a son of peace was* 
found to preside* (Luke x. 6,) He affirmed that salvation 
had come to the house or family, of Zaccheus, when he 
^ecame a real child of Abraham. (Luke xix. 9.) He ap^ 
nlauded the practice of bringing infants to receive his 
fyc^ang, and declared ttajt u of such is the kingdom qf 



86 

God." (Luke xviii. 15, 16.) In his last conversation with 
his apostles, he commanded them to feed not only the 
• sheep, but the lambs of his flock. (John xxi. IS.) Peter 
taught converted parents, that the promise was still to them 
&nd their children ,* (Acts ii. 39.) and that, as the family of 
Noah were preserved on his account, so baptism, by " a 
like figure, doth now save Us.*' (1 Pet. iii. 21.) Pfcul 
represents the whole church of Israd, parents and children, 
to have been baptized together, by the miraculous interpo- 
sition of Jehovah. (1 Cor. x. 2.) He affirms that "the 
blessihg of Abraham" an important part of which consist- 
ed in the covenant conpexion of his children, has '* eome 
on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." (Gal. iii. 14.) He 
denominates the children of believing parents holy; ■ ad*- 
dresses them as saints ; and considers them in some sense 
" beloved for" their "fathers 9 sakes."* He repeatedljr 
baptized households, on account of the faith and profession 
of parents. Lydia believed, and she and her household 
were baptized* The jailer believed, and he and off his 
were baptized. (Acts xvi. 15, 33.) He also baptized thfe 

household of Stephanas. (1 Cor. i. .16.) ''The term* 

household" says Mr. J. " does not necessarily imply in- 
fants." (P. 15.) Perhaps not necessarily. Still, few in- 
stances can be adduced, among the many in which this 
word is used in scripture, where children are not evidently 
included. " The stress of the business," says Dr. Li c ht- 
fooT, " lies not so much in this, whetrer it can be proved 
there were children in these households, as that* if there 
were, they certainly were all baptized." f - 

That each of these households was composed of adults, 
who were all converted and baptized together^ on a per- 
sonal profession of faith, would certainly be a mosi extra- 
ordinary event. I am bold t6 believe there have hot been 
three other such households since the fall. Why was not 
the wonderful fact recorded, if it really took place? If the 
conversion merely of the heads pf these families was an 
event so important as to merit an enrolment in the volume 
of divine truth, how could the simultaneous conversion of 
each of their respective houseliolds be passed over in utter 
silence ? j I t is alleged as evidence that the family of 

* X Cor. Tij. 14/, Eph. vi, 1, compared with i, 1 ; jloxn, xi, 23, im T*f flrfrjfffcft 
- t In P . CukRK'i Strip, Ground* of Inf. Bap. p. 113, 



87 

Lydia were all professing believers, that before "Paul and 
Silas left the city, they entered into her house, and saw 
and comforted the brethren" (P. 15.)— Doubtless " the 
brethren" — the whole infant church— had assembled un- 
der her hospitable roof, to hear the instructions, and re- 
ceive the parting blessing, of their spiritual faftier.-— It is 
evident beyond controversy, from the very face of the ac- 
count, that of the family of Lydia, she only was a belieyer. 
Her " heart the Lord opened." After, she and her house- 
hold had received baptism, she said, " If ye have judged 
me to be faithful, come into my house." (Acts xvi. 14, 15.) 

The jailer, it -is said, " rejoiced, believing in God, with 
all his Iwuse" (P* 16.)— If there is an ambiguity in this 
English phrase, there is none in the original.* It is there 
positively determined, and Mr. J. knows it, that the Taith 
and joy which are here expressed, can refer to the jailer only. 
, It is said* the apostle testifies of the household of Ste- 
phanas, that u they have addicted themselves to the minis- 
try of saints" (P. 16.)— When the apostle wrote this, 
they had been baptized a number of years. Shall we then 
believe that, after their conversion, they were for years un- 
mindful of the necessities of saints ? Or is it not far more 
probable, that they were not all converted when they were 
baptized ? It is not at all incredible, that the household of 
Stephanas, who were baptized o% his account, should in 3 
few years be made the subjects of special grace, and u ad- 
dict themselves to the ministry of saints." 
. We have given a specimea of the manner in which 
Christ and his apostles treated the covenant connexion of 
children with their believing parents. They taught and 
practised precisely as we might expect, on supposition 
they designed to perpetuate the custom of baptizing infants. 

.7. According to the principles of Antipedobaptists, there 
is at present no valid baptism in the world. That infant 
baptism is a nullity 9 and that those who have received no 
Setter baptism are unqualified to baptize others^ are princi- 
ples which these Christians consider essential to their sys- 
tem.! With these in view, let us look back on the church 

t If Pedobaptist ministers propose to immerse candidates for coirartunion, When 
any offer who prefer this mode, Antipedobaptists ahndst invariably reply— u You 
have no right to baptist—yva fare mt been- baptised youmin^ 



1 / 



•j 



J \ 



of God. Receding caily a few centuries, and not a Chris-* 
tian can be discovered on earth, who does not admit and 
practise infaht baptism. Dn Gitt acknowledges, that he 
was cl not able to find one iristdnce of an opposer of infant 
baptism*" frbm the eleventh to the fourth century.* The 
supposition* therefore, that thete has been an unbroken 
chain of adult immersions, from the age of the apostles 
down to the present, is perfectly iriadmissibiei^-The prhu 
fciples rf out oppohents maV now be readily tested* by aft 
Application to themselves. The Baptists in India afford a 
lair ekatnplei These Christians have been immersed on a 
profession of their faith* and,by persons wty> were them- 
selves immersed, On a similar profession. They suppose, 
thergfore* that they have been truly baptized. But is this 
the fact ? Receding in a ^succession, they instantly arrive 
at a period, Wheii* rf their immersions are not lost* they 
\vere administered by those who had no better baptism 
than that they, received in irifancy. They instantly arrive 
at a period^ when* according to their principled* there was 
ho valid baptism on earth. Who* then* has repaired the 
broken chain ? Wh6 has restored the lost ordinance of 
Chri&t ? How is he authorized to baptize others, who nev- 
er has been baptized himself? And if he baptize others 
Without sufficient authority, must not their baptism be as 
invalid as his own ?*-li# short, these principles destroy 
'themselves. They spare neither friend nor foe* They 
unchurch not only^ the residue of the Christian world, but 
those very persons who profess to embrace them* Ac- 
cording to tnese principles, Christ has not been faithful to 
his word. He promised to be always with his ministers 
in the administration of baptism, "even to the end Of the 
world." (Matth. *xviii. 20.) The *rorld still remains^ 
but baptism has ceased. The ordinance is lost, and no 
man can restore it. It rtever can be again administered 
till the end of time, unless the Head of the church is pleas- 
ed to appear again, and grant a new commission to his am- 
bassadors on earth, f— Consequences so awfuj, evince the 
falsehood of those premises from Which they are derived. 
They teach us the necessity of adhering to the propriety 
;and validity of infant baptism. 

* Answer to Clark, p. 2G. 

+ See this argument still farther iRosiratc<4 in Bostjviok's Vindication oflaf* 
Baptism, pp. 20—28. 



' We conclude tffis Action with hotifcirig tiro general oW 

jections. ': •: i -. 

* Mr. J. considers it an objection to the' baptism of infants? 
that this is not enjoined in the New Testatnedt by any ex* % 
pr ess command. (&15 ; )»~We have already ahbwn ttakt 
such a command was unnecessary, and under existing cir* 
cumstances not to have been expefcted. We may reply 
farther, if needful, to this objection, that if it prbves anjr 
thing, it proves too much* if we must practise nothing 
ivhich ia not expressly commanded in the New Testament* 
we must prohibit females from coming to th? Lord's table; 
lay aside forever family prayer, and renounce art observance 
of the first day of the week. Mr. J. must on this ground 
relinquish another observance, which he undoubtedly 
thinks important. Let him no longer administer baptism 
to adults who have been born of Christian parents, ' More 
than sixty years elapsed after the institution of Christian 
baptism, before the canon of scripture was closed* In this 
period, many children of Christian parents must not only 
have g*rown to manhood, but passed the meridian of life f ; 
Might it not be expected, on Mr. Jud*>n's principles, thai 
We should be informed of the baptism of some oj these 
children, in adult years ? We ask, then, (to adopt his own 
manner,) Have we any such example? "Not one." Do 
we find any such instances clearly mentioned ? u Not one* 
Has not Christ left some command enjoining'' such " bap- 
tism ? Not one. Have not the apostles, who were entrust* 
ed with farther communications of the will of Christ, left 
some command on this subject ? Not one."— These fact? 
not only afford a complete answer to the objection before 
us— -they do more. They furnish strong presumptive evi* 
dence, that in the apostolick age the children of Christian 
parents were never baptized in adult years, but trefe uiti- 
formly admitted to this ordinance in infancy. 

Mr. J. also objects, that if infant baptism u were univer- 
sally adopted, it would banish believers 11 baptism out of th£ 
world." (P. 15.)— -What shall we understand by this am* 
biguous phrase, " believers'* baptism ?" If it is a baptism 
to be applied Exclusively to adults, nofttatter how soon it 
is banished. — When Christian baptism was instituted, the 
whole world was unbaptized. No person could have re- 
ceived the brdinance. In these circumstances, and in re* 



*0 

spect to the myriads of unbaptized adults< Christ &fid f 
« He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." (Mark 
3ivi. 16.) He justly required of such, to exhibit evidence 
of faith in order to baptism.— When the religion of Christ 
shall have filled the earth, and there are no longer any un- 
baptized adults, circumstances will be totally changed. 
"Believers' baptism," in Mr. Judson's sense, will be 
banished ; and its restoration will be as little desirable, as 
that die world should be brought back to a state of com* 
parative darkness. We are not at all alarmed, therefore, at 
the prospect of banishing, in the sense supposed, " believ- 
ers' baptism.'* 



Section VI. 

J < 

The same Subject continued. 

8. IT only remains that we adduce thtf testimony of 
history y in favour of the practice of infant baptism.* The 
pertinence and weight of this kind of evidence may be seen 
in the following quotation from an eminent Baptist writer. 

Dr. Gals. "I will grant it is probable, that what all or 
most of the churches practised immediately after the apos- 
tles' times, had been appointed or practised by the apostles 
themselves j for it is hardly to be imagined, that any con- 
siderable body of these ancient Christians, and much less 
that the whole, should so soon deviate from the customs 
and injunctions of their venerable founders, whose authori- 
ty they held so sacred. New opinions or practices are 
usually introduced by degrees, and not without opposition. 
Therefore in regard to baptism, a tiling of such universal 

* Mr. Jr represents history as " the last resort of Fedobaptbts." Driven from 
the scriptures by their triumphant opponents, they at length shrink for shelter un- 
der u the practice of the churth," (P. 33.) In this representation he is countenanced 
Chiefly by the Bishop of Meaux. This man was a Papist. The testimony of Pa- 
pists is introduced to the same purpose by Robert Hall. (Terms of Commu- 
nion, p. 106.) — Our opponents trill remember, that Papists consider the practice 
efthe church as high authority as the word of God ; and they have the Utmost in- 
terest in representing Protestants to believe the same, This we do not believe* 
Nor do we rest the baptism of infants on any such ground. We agree with Wit- 
sius, that " the grounds for this (and those beyond all exceptions) are to be met 
with in scripture ; so that there is no necessity, with the Papists, who shamefully 
prevaricate in a good cause, to hare recourse- in this matter to unwritten iraa% 
Hon. n (Econ. of Cot. vol. iii. p. 409.) ~ The foundation of infant baptism 
jfcas been already laid. The superstructure has been builded. The testimony rf 
fajstory is here adduced, merely as collateral, corroborative evidence. 



concern and daily practice, I allow it to te very probative, 
that the primitive churches kept to the apostolick pattern.. 
I verify believe, that the primitive church maintained, in 
this case, an exact conformity to the practice of the apos- 
tles, which doubtless agreed entirely with Christ's institu- 
tion."* 

Sufficient authority is here ascribed to the example of 
primitive paints. We proceed, therefore, to prove, that * 
their sentiments and practice were uniformly in favour of 
infant baptism. 

We have shown already, that the earliest Christian fa- 
thers considered baptism in the place of circumcision.f 
They must therefore have believed it to be applied, like 
circumcision, to the infant offspring of believers. 

We have shown, also, that they considered such infants, 
in a sense, members of the church.% Justin Martyr 
speaks of some who were then sixty or seventy years old> 
" who were made disciples" or members, " in their infan* 
cy" These persons must have been made disciples in 
the latter part of the apostolick age. If the apostles regard- 
ed their commission, which was to " go and disciple all na- 
tions, baptizing them," (Matth. xxviiu 19,) they certainly 
were made disciples in infancy, by baptism. Here is as 
Convincing evidence of infant baptism in the days of the 
apostles, as though Justin had affirmed it in express terms. 

The following quotations will place the reality of infant 
baptism in the primitive church, beyond all reasonable 
controversy, 

Herm as. " The baptism of water is necessary to all."f 

Irenjeus. " Christ came to save all persons by himself; 
all; I mean, who by him are baptized unto God ; infants^ 
and little ones, and children, and youths. "H 

* Reflections on Wall, p. 398. 
t Part ii. sect iv. We have there quoted to this purpose Jcbtin MARTYR* 
Cypriax, Austin, Basil, and Chrysostov. 
% fart ii. sect iii. We have there quoted Hkrmas, Justin Martyr, and 

1VLENJEV8. 

$ In Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. P. i. chap, i, HeRmas was cotemporarj with 
Paul. (Rom. xvi. 14.) Does he mean that water baptism is necessary to all per-, 
*ons t or to all connected with the church ? In either case he must have included 
infants j since we have shown that he considered infants connected with the 
church. (Part ii. sect, iii.) 

|| in Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i. chap. iii. IrkMits wrote within about 
67 years of the apostolick age. He is said by Dodwkll to have been born be- 
fore the death of John. He was personally acquainted with PolycArp, a disci- 
ple* of John, and had heard him preach. The only objection to his testimony i*, 



n 

Or ic E K- u Infants by the usage of the church are 6a£, 
btd.—:I?t/ant$ are baptized for the remission of sins.— In, 
jhnts are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism 
our pollution is taken away,-— The church had a tradition 
or command from the aposttet^ to give baptism to infants."* 
Tsrtullian. "Tney who understand the weight of 
fapifcm, wilt rather dread the receiving of it, than the de- 
laying of it* Therefore; to everyone's condition, disposi* 



he expresses baptism by a verb (renascary whfch literally signifies, regenerate ; 
|Hitting, by a very common figure, the thjng signified for the aga. That he really 
intended isy this "word to expreai baptism, is evident from hi* own ose of it in a 
Variety of instances, V Wnen Ch>?*t," W 8 ^ "gave hjs apostles the command 
elf regenerating unto <*od, he, said, Go and (each all nations, baptizing them. 1 * 
This mode of expressing Ittptisni by regeneration, was perfectly common in the 
primitive church, as it is iq t^e ^nscopal church to this day. Jcstlw MajhtvR, 
shaking of baptized persons, says, " They are regenerated in the same way of 
regeneration in which we are Regenerated ; for they are washed with water, in the 
name, of th? fatter, the Son, and. the Holy Gfibst" See a variety of instance^ 
t* the game DUipose, in Wall's Hist. Inf, Bap. vol. i t chap. iii. and his Defence, 
lie. pp. 31&^-324.— Our Saviour gave occasion to this mode of expression, 
when he caBeft baptism a being VMtn of water ;" (JoJm iii. 5>) and Paul, when 
be, styled it ** tjie. washing, of regeneration).", (Tit, iii. 5,)— That Ir^njeus de- 
fiighs'a being horn of water, ox: baptism, Vhen he speaks of the regeneration of in- 
fants, |s also evident from the very nature of tHe case. Infants can give evidence 7 
9f no othet regeneration, 

Mr! JVnsojr objects that this M makes the passage unintelligible." (P. 33.) But 
We* see no difficulty in understanding it. All w)io are baptized through the instru- 
jnentality pf phris.t's ministers, are baptised by him. And all who are thus baptized 
\>y Christ, are bap^zed (in Deuni) in the. name, of the triune God. What is there, 
then, unintelligible hi ChrisPs baptizing persons unto God ? This interpretation co- 
incides perfectl^wjth.the connexion of tfte passage, and witf not be calledm question 
fcy any.whft.ajre intimately acquainted with the writings of the fathers. The case 
was so clear \a the mind of Dr* Wall, who better understood the phraseology of 
the primitive church in relation to this subject, than any other modern, that he 
does not hesitate to call it an " express mention of baptized infants." In this he 
has been followed by many of the learned. See Puck's Theol, Diet, vol. i. p. 60 ; 
Ifowooob on Inf t Bap. p. 31 ; Bostwick^s Vind. of Inf. Bap. p. 22 ; Dr. Wor- 
c^ster's fetters, p t 117, 

* Horn, viii, m Lev t xii. and Com. in Epis. to Rom. lib. v. Origejv was born, , 
within about' 85 years of, the apostotick age. He had the best means of knowing 
the practice ot the apostles respecting infant baptism ; for his grandfather, or at 
least his great-grandfather, (both of whom, according to Eusebils, were Chris- 
tians,) were cotemporary with the apostles themselves. Add to this, he was one 
of the most learned men of his time ; travelled into various countries; and was 
acquainted with the customs of the whole Christian church: He argues from in-. 
fant baptism, in proof of original sin t Hii argument would have had no weight, 
had infant baptism been a questionable practice. He constantly speaks of it as a 

tttiiversaDy approved and established custom. Mr. Jupson has no method of 

freeing himself from thid testimony, but by finding fault with Ruffinvs 5 transla- 
tion of some of Origea's works: (P. 34.) — Happily many of the passages which 
are usually brought from Origek, have no connexion with this translation. They 
are taken in part from a translation by Jerome, and in part from the original 
Greek. (See Doddridge's Lect P. ix. Prop, cliv.) The authenticity of the 
passages we have cited above, has been vindicated by Dr. Wall, to the entire 
Satisfaction of all impartial minte. gee, his Defence, &c. pp. 373—383 ; Jlukifi 
Apology, pp. 263-^73. . 



03 r 

tion, and age, the delaying*qf baptism is more- profitable, 
especially in the case of children. Why does that hinc^ 
cent age make such haste to baptism ? What occasion is 
there, except in cases of necessity, that the sponsors should 

be brought into danger ?"*t Here is direct proof that 

Tertpllian considered infant baptism both lawful an<J 
important. He implicitly recommends it, " in cases ofne* 
ccssity" Here is also direct proof of iU great prevalence 
in these early times, " Why does, that innocent age make 
such haste to baptism ? l * 

CypRiAN, ana the'Councii. of.Carthag^. a I£, 
even to the foulest offenders, when they afterwards believe, 
remission of sins is granted, and none is prohibited from 
baptism and grace, how much more should an infant be ad* 
mitted /—It is our opinion, that from baptism and the 
grace of God, none ought to be prohibited by us; >vhich, 
as it is to be observed in respect to all, so especially in re± 
sped to irifants, and those %vho are but just born, who de- 
serve our help, ajnd the divine mercy»"t 

*Tbrt. de Baptismo, cap, xviii, In Towgood on Inf. Bap. p. 32. Te*« 
tullian was cotemporary with Origen, and flourished within 100 years of the 
apostolick age. Because he thought it ' 4 profitable," in certain cases, to delay 
the baptism of infants, he is usually cited by Antipedobaptists, as one in favour of. 
their cause. But he also thought, that " to every one^s condition, disposition, and' 
age, the delaying of baptism was profitable." |f e did not consider the baptism of 
infants unlaiyful, nor did be argue against it merely because of their infancy ; for 
he argued as strongly against the baptism of u unmarried persons, 1 ' and all "who 
iwere likely to come into temptation t "-r*The truth is, he imagined that sins com- 
mitted after baptism were next to unpardonable. He advised, therefore, that all? 
person* should delay baptism, till tjiey had nearly or entirely done with sin— till 
they weye either brought tp the verge, of* the (grave, or were in some way release^, 
from the temptations of life, — There is no father whose testimony is more con-, 
vincing to the fact of infant baptism in iht primitive age, than that of Tertul- 
liAV; It is merely as a witness to this fact, that he is here introduced .■•—He 
was an extravagantly fanciftll, whimsical Writer. He embraced many strange and; 
peculiar notions. He was finally ejected from the communion of the church* 
See Milwei^b Ecc, Hist ; vol. i. pp, 261—260 ; Wali/s Hist, of Inf.Bup. •, La- 
$hrof'9 Disc, on Bap. p. 68 ; and Worcester's Letters, p. 120. 

t Ctp. Epis. ad Fidum, Epitf. Jix, In Milner's Eoc. Hist. vol. i. p. 400.— 
Pypriax was for a short period cotemporary with Origen. The council of Car-, 
thage, oveT which he presided, was convened 153 years subsequent to 13 io age of 
the apostles. This council consisted of 60 bishops, and was called to determine* 
among other things, (so prevalent was the idea that baptism was in stead of circum- 
cision,) whether it was lawful to administer baptism to infants, till they were eight 
days old. It was unanimously decreed, that u their haptitninecd not be. deferred 
fill the eighth day." — u Here," gays Mr. Milner, " is an assembly of sixty-six 
pastors, men of approved fidelity and gravity, who have stood the fiery trial of 
some of the severest persecutions ever known ; who have testified their love to 
the Lord Jesus in a more sinking manner than any Antipedobaptists have 'had an 
opportunity of doing in our days ; and who seem not to have been wanting in any , 
fundalueatai of godliness. Before this holy assembly a question is brought, not 



A 

J 



94 

* CiemeVtine Constitutions. "Baptize your hu 
fonts, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of 

God,"* 

Questions and Answers to the Orthodox. In 
this celebrated work, which is ascribed to Justin Mar* 
TYR, there are " inquiries into the different states of those 
children, at the general resurrection, who were, arid who 
were not baptized."^ 

Apostolick Constitutions. In this very ancient, 
though not inspired book, * c there is express mention of in* 
fant baptism, as commanded by Christ. ? f 

Jerome* u If infants be not baptized, the sin of omit- 
ting their baptism is laid to the parent^ charge.";): 

Gregory Nazianzen. " infants should be baptized, 
to consecrate them to Christ in their mfancy. v \ # 

Ambrose. " The baptism of infants was the practice of 
the apostles* and has ever been in the church till this time."$ 

Chrysostom. «• Persons may be baptized either in 
their infancy, in middle age, or in old age."{ 

Augustine or Austin. "Infant baptism the whole 
church practises : it was not instituted by councils, but 
was ever in «$«>— The whole church of Christ lias con- 
stantly held, that mfants were baptized for the forgiveness 
of sins. — Let no one so much as whisper any other doc* 
trine in your ears : this the church tuts always had, has al- 
ways held.—l have never read or heard of any Christian, 
whether Catholiek or sectary, who held otherwise." |J 

whether infants should t»e baptized — none contradicted this— but whether they 
should be baptized immediately, or on the eighth day. To a man, they deter- 
mined to baptize them immediately. Let the reader consider." Among all these 
pastofs, there were undoubtedly some who" were advanced in age ; whose parents* 
or grandparents had lived in the first century, and were well acquainted with the 
practice of the apostles themselves. Is it possible to conceive, were infant bap- 
tism air innovation, that not one of these men should be acquainted with the fact ; 
or, if acquainted with it, that none should have the fidelity and fortitude to oppose 
the errour? See Mi liter's Ecc. Hist. vol. i. p. 402; Towgood on Inf.. Bap. p. 
35 ; Reel's Apology, pp. 273—277. 

* In Towgood on Inf. Bap. p. 36. This work is thought to be of higli antique 
ty. It is known to have been extant almost in the earliest ages of the Christian 
church. t In Doddridge^ Lect. Part ix. Prop. cliv. 

Jin Reed's Apology, p. 277, Jerome wrote about 255 years, and Chry- 
sostom about 270 years, subsequent to the apostolick age. 

Q In Lathrop's Disc, on Bap. p. 70. Gregory wrote about 260 year?, and 
Ambrose about 274 years, subsequent to the apostolick age. 

I) In Dr, Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bap. vol. t. pp. 187—302. AvSTiir wrote with* 
in 280 years of the apostolick age. He is styled by Mr. Milner, " the gre*£ 
* luminary of" 4he century in which he lived. (Ecc, Hist. vol. i. p. 500.) ^ 



05 

J Pfit A6itrs. " Baptism ought to be administered toin- 
fantS) with the same sacramental words which are used in 
the case of adult persons. Men slander me> as if I denied 
the sacrament of baptism to infants. I never heard of any, 
not even the most impious heretick, who denied baptism to 
infants. Foe who can be so impious, as to hinder infants 
from being baptized and born again in Christ, and so 
make them miss of the kingdom of God."* 

Celesti us. "As for infants, I always said they stand 
in need of baptism, and ought to be baptized."* 

How shall this blaze of evidence, respecting tlje practice 
of the primitive church, be obscured ? 

Mr. Judson has for tKis purpose brought forward a^ 
number of modern writers^ who express an opinion that, 

* In Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bap. ibid, and p- 62. PELAGitrs and CelUStiub were 
cotemporary, and nourished about 900 years subsequent to the apostles. They 
were distinguished for their learning, acuteness, and subtilty ; were conversant in 
every part of the Christian world ; and were the founders and promoters of the 
famous Pelagian heresy. They denied the doctrine of original tin. It is neces- 
sary that this fact be kept in mind, in order to. see the foil force, not only of their 
testimony, but of that given above from the celebrated Austin. The whole or* 
thodox church, with Austin at their head, constantly and victoriously urged, in 
opposition to their errours, the baptism of infants. **■ Why are infant* baptised 
for the remission of sins, if they have none .*" — We here see the true reason wb£ 
infant baptism was urged by Austin with so much warmth. It was not, as Mr* 
Jtjdsow insinuates, (p. 38,) because any one opposed it, but because it was thought 
to furnish an immoveable foundation on which, to build the doctrine of original 
sin. — PELAGrua and his abettors were extremely embarrassed with this argument* 
A variety of evasions were attempted, in order to escape its force. " Sometimes) 
they affirmed that infants had actual sins," which needed forgiveness. " Some* 
times, that they had pre-existed ; and it was for sins done in some former staid 
that they were brought to baptism. Sometimes they said they were not baptized 
for the forgiveness of sins, but that they might be sanctified. Sometimes, that 
they were baptised for forgiveness ; not that they had any sin, but because they 
were baptized into a church where forgiveness was to be had." (See Wall's Hist, 
of Inf. Bap. vol. i. p. 280.) Such were the straits to which these acute heresi- 
archs were reduced, in order to reconcile their opinion with infant baptism. How 
easily had all these been " removed, and the battery which so much annoyed 
them been demolished, at once, by only denying that infants were to be baptized." • 
So strong were 4 heir temptations to make such a denial, that Pelagius complains 
of its being slanderously reported that he had actually made it. It is morally cer- 
tain that he would have made it, if, with all his learning, and in all his travels, he 
had discovered the slightest evidence to justify such a course. . Yet he never did. 
He, on thto contrary, asserts the right of infants to baptism in the strongest terras. 
His testimony is the most convincing imaginable. See Towoood on Inf. Bap. p. 
37 ; Milnbr's Ecc. Hist, vol, H. pp. 360— 396.— Testimonies from antiquity 
might be multiplied. The reader may consult Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bap* P. i. 
chap. vii. — xxiii. ; and Forbesius' Hist, of Theology, passim* 

t A passage is introduced in this connexion from the apostle Paul. " As many 
of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ/ 1 (Gal. iii. 27.)— 
Can any be really u baptized into Christ," who are not real Christians ? And will 
it foHow, because real Christians have " put on ChruU" that the children, of oov* 
enfating parqnts are not to be baptized f 



96 

*' in primitive times, none were baptized but adults.*' (Ppl 
S6, 37.) — In contradiction to these, we might bring for- 
ward a host of moderns* We might introduce Calvin, 
saying, that *' whereas certain persons spread abroad among 
feimple people, that there passed a long series of years after 
the resurrection of Christ, in which infant baptism was un- 
known, therein they lie most abominably ; for there is no 
writer so ancient* that doth not certainly refer the begin* 
iiing thereof to the age of the apostles."* We might in* 
troduce the learned Brown, testifying, that "none can 
without the most affronted imposition allege, that infant 
baptism was not commonly allowed in the primitive ages 
of Christianity."! We might introduce the cautious and 
judicious MiLNEfi, affirming, that fl we have never had 
such a custom as that of confining baptism to adults* nor 
the churches of God"% We might introduce witnesses 
to this effect, without end — *but we need not* Through 
the three. first centuries subsequent to the apostles, we 
-have heard Christian writers of the first eminence, testify* 
ing implicitly and explicidy, and as it were with one mouth, 
td the universally approved and established custom of in- 
fat\t baptism* After a lapse of eleven, or twelve, or thir- 
teen hundred years, a few names can be collected, who 
have, perhaps incautiously, dropped an opinion, that infant 
baptism was not practised in the primitive church. Who 
sliall be believed ? 

Mr. Judson objects, that infant baptism could not be 
the universal practice of the primitive churph, since we 
have several instances of persons " born of Christian pa«- 
rents, who were not baptized but on their own profession." 
He mentions Jerome, Gregory, Ambrose, Chrysos* 
tom, and Austin. (P. 37.) — " With respect to Jerome,'* 
savs Dr. Worcester, "there is no evidence that he was 
not baptized in his infancy."^ Concerning Gregory, it 
appears that his father was a determined and bitter enemy 
to Christianity, perhaps till his son had become of age. 
He belonged to a " sect most resembling the Samaritans, 
who professed a mixture of Judaism and Paganism. To 
this opinion he was extremely. devoted" and was not con- 
verted to the Christian faith, till he had been married ma* 

• Institutes of Chris. Relig. Book ir. chap. xvi« sect. 8. t Diet, of Bfcta 
$Ecc. Hist. vol. i. p. 401. ft Letters to Dr. BAldwiw, p. 107. 



97 

tiy years. He Would, without doubt, prohibit the baptism 
of his son in infancy.* As to Ambrose and Chrysos- 
foM, their parents, according to Dr. Wall, were hea- 
then, at the time of their birth, and for many years after- 
wards. f Respecting the instance of Austin, on which 
Mr. J. seems disposed to rely with the greatest confidence^ 
this too is entirely against him. That Av &tin*s father 
was a Christian, is not pretended* And that his mother 
was not at least a professor of religion, till he had arrived 
to manhood, is certain from his own words. He says of 
her, in his Confessions, that when he was learning oratory 
at Carthage, " she bad lately begun to feel God's holy kve r 
and had been washed in the lover of baptism"! 

Mr. J. finally brings forward " the case of infant com- 
munion" as completely invalidating the argument derived 
from history in favour of infant baptism. Indeed he sup- 
poses, that every objection which can be urged against in-' . 
font communion, can be equally urged against infant bap- 
tism ; and that every argument which tends to support the 
one practice, equally tends to support the other. (Pp. 38, 
39.)— If this is true, let infants be admitted to the table- 1 
There is no avoiding the arguments in favour of their bap- 
tism.— But is it true ?— If, says he, " infants ought to be 
baptized, because under a former dispensation they were 
circumcised," then " they ought to be admitted to com- 
munion, because they formerly partook of the Passover" 
(P. 39.)-— The following quotations will show, that infants 
never did partake, and were never required to partake, of 
the Passover. 

Hyrc AKtrs in Josephtjs. w The law forbids the son to 
eat of the sacrifice, before he has come to the temple, and 
there presented an offering to God." J 

Calvik. " The Passover, which has now been succeed- 
ed by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descrip- 
tions promiscuously, but was rightly eaten only by those who 
were of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its meaning."^ 
Bp. Patrick. " When children were twelve years old % 
their parents were bound to bring them to the temple at 

• Milvkr's Ece. Hist vol. ii. p. 267. t Hist. Inf. Bap. Part ii. chap, iijv 
\ Confessions, Book ii. in Milbter^s Ecc. Hist. vol. ii. p. 301* 
♦ Antiq. lib* xit cap. iv. sect 8. 
||Iijstitutei of Chris* Rel. B. ir. chap. 3tvL sect. 30* > 

13 



58 

&e Passover, .Where, seeing what was done, they Avotild 
be led to inquire* What mean ye by these things ?"* 

Pooxe's Synopsis. "Children, at the age of twefoe years* 
Were brought by their parents to the temple; and from that 
time they began to eat qfthe Passover and other sacrifices. 5, f 

St ackhouse. " Till a child was twelve years old, he was 
not obliged to go to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover "% 
* Dr. Doddridge. " The males were not brought to the 
temple, tin they were twelve years old; and the sacrifices 
they eat were chiefly peace offerings* which Bfccame the 
common food to all that were clean in the family. "J 

It appears from the very nature of the case, as well as 
from? these testimonies, tKat though infants were formerly 
circumcised, they were not required to eat the Passover* 
Mah^ jvqre Corporally incapable of eating it ; and more 
could iiot, with convenience or prudence, be brought sta- 
tedly to the temple, at this annual feast.— "The argument of 
Mr. J. is/ then, directly inverted* It proves that, though 
infants are now to be baptized, they ought not to be ad- 
mitted to the table of the Lord. 

Infants are jboth morally and physically incapable of com- 
ing to the r LottPs table, according to the meaning of the in* 
stitutkm, They " may be the subjects of the. renewing of 
ike Holy Ghost, and sprinkling of the blood of Christ, sig- 
nified by baptism ;" but they cannot, in the supper, discern 
the ^Lotrd 9 ? body f . and partake of it. in remembrance offunu 
THfey cart be Visibly distinguished as the special property '. 
of their Maker* Promises can be sealed respecting them/ 
orf condition of parental fidelity. But they cannot hold, 
spiritual communion with Christ, <ir properly approach the 
symbols of Such communion. Since all subjects are the t 
passive recipients of baptism, infants are as Capable *>f this 
ordinance as adults. But they are physically incapable df 
those external voluntary actions, which are required in the, 
institution of the supper. They cannot take the bread or 
wine. They can neither eat the one, not drink the other.fl- 

* III Ex. Kit. t In fix. *ft 26, and Annotation! on Luke ii. A8t. 

. % Hist, of Bible* B. vui. chap. i. 
% Lect, P. k. Prop. 155. See Latbrop's Dis. on Bap. p. 42. When oar Sa- 
viour was twelve years old, he went up to the Passover, ** according to the tusiwi 
of the feast" (Lute ii. 42.) See Dr. A. Clark* in loc. " 

|| " AU the words of our Lord's command are so expressed, that they cannot be- 
long to infants ; who can neither receive the bread, nor eat it, unless ft be chewed 

fox ttan, or wafers CWotwu, Get n. of Cor. vpl ifr p, 436.) .; 



■'*§ 

' If infants are thus Incapable of coming to the Lord's ta« 
ble, then there can be no good reason why this should, be 
required of them* To adopt the phraseology arid manner 
of Mr. JitdsoNj Infants " ought to be baptized* because 
they are connected with their parents in covenant with 
God." But this is no good, reason why they should be 
called on to perform an action of which they are utterly in- 
capable. Infants " ought to be baptized, because they are 
members dFthe visible church."' But this is no good rea- 
son why they should participate in an ordinance of wftch 
they are utterly incapable. Infants " ought to be baptized^ 
because Christ commanded them to be brought to him, 
and declared that of such is the kingdom of God',".. But; 
f Christ was never so unreasonable as to command them to 
come to him, in an ordinance of which they are utterly in- 
capable* Infants " ought to be baptized, because they lire 
not unclean, but holy*" But this is no good reason why 
they should engage in that of which their infant age is in- 
capable, Jt would " lessen the privileges which the church 
anciently enjoyed, to withhold baptism from infants."' But 
it lessens no privilege, to restrain them from, attempting 
that which they utterly lack capacity to perform. , It would 
be "harsh and injurious to exclude infants from baptism*" 
But it is neither harsh nor injurious that they are not ad- 
mitted to an ordinance from which they are excluded by 
their very condition of life. In short, we have the best and 
soundest reasons for administering baptism to infants ; but 
the scriptures no where afford the shadow of a reason for 
admitting them to the table of the Lord. 

It is true,, that by some churches infant communion has 
been practised, and by some particular persons it has been 
advocated, both in ancient and modern times. So early as 
the days of Cyprian, it was customary with some, " to 
give a piece of bread soaked in wine to children and the 
sick."* In later periods, when, from a misinterpretation, 
of our Saviour's words, " Except ye eat the flesh of the 
Son of Man, and drink Jus blood, ye have no life in you," 
(John vi. 53,) it was believed that a partaking of the sup- 
per was essential to salvation, infant communion more gen- 
erally prevailed. It is mentioned 6y Photius, Austiit, 

•Wrrsius' Econ, of Cov. vol. iii. p. 432. " IaCTPRiA*'* fyne, the people of 
{he church of Carthage did oftentimes bring their children younger tktn had fee? 
ojfdimry to flie communion." (W^Uii/s Hist of Inf. Bap. vol, i. p. 517.) 






\ 



i 



V 



100 

and Paul musk It continues among the Greeks to tho 

Sesent day. * u They crumble the consecrated bread into 
e wine, take it out with a spoon/' and put it into the 
mouths of infants.* ' 

Were infant baptism founded on mere historical evi- 
dence, and were this evidence as clear in favour of infant 
communion as of infant baptism, the practices would then 
Stand on equal ground* But none of this is true. The 
baptism of infants is founded on scripture. The commu- 
nion of infants is virtually condemned in scripture. Nor 
is the argument from history, in the two cases, by any 
means equal. We discover clear intimations of infant 
baptism, even in the middle of the apostolick age. Wo 
discover no intimations of infant communion, till the mid- 
dle of the third century. We have the most convincing 
evidence, that infant baptism was universally practised in 
the primitive church. We have no such evidence that in- 
fant communion was ever universal. The fathers speak 
with the utmost confidence of infant baptism, that it was 
handed them directly froin the apostles. Those who make 
mention of infant communion, never speak of it, that I can 
learn, after this manner, f' Infant baptism bears infallible 
marks of its divine original. Infant communion has every 
feature of an innovation in the church. On what gmund* 
then, is infant communion introduced, as invalidating the 
evidence, either from scripture or tradition, in favour of 
infant baptism? v 

" AH the churches throughout the Christian world were 
in the age of the apostles established upon the same plan* 
Either they all baptized infants, or they all rejected them. 
And the practice of the apostles in this matter mu6t be uni- 
versally and infallibly known. AH Christians knew> wheth- 
er or not Paul and his companions baptized their children." 

On the principles of our opponents, the apostles every 
where established churches upon the plan of adult baptism 
only. They uniformly rejected infants,, and excluded 

* See Note on the preceding page. 

t Dr. Doddridge, speaking of Pxikcs's learned Essay in favour of infant com- 
munion, says, " His proof from the more ancient fathers is bery defective." (LecU 
P. ix. Prop. 155.) Mr. Cowles observes, that, u though infant communion 
might be practised in some churches, it never was an universal practice ; neither 
. is it asserted by ancient writers to be derived from the apostles, as infant baptism 
was." (Sermons on Inf. Bap. p. 78.) 



»»jw«_.i . — . > ■■ I I 'p — « »^^ I U. I ■ ■ 



101 

them from the ordinance. At what period, then, we ask f * 
was infant baptism introduced? Mr. Judson supposes it 
<c commenced in the latter part of the second century;" 
(P. 35.) which is within less than a century of the apostol- 
ick age.* — But "how," says Mr. Towcood, "how 
must the persons who first attempted to introduce it be" 
received ? Would not all their brethren immediately cry 
out upon the innovation, and demand, *By what authority 
do you prfkumc to perform this nexo, this unheard of and 
strange ceremony of baptizing an infant ?*— — -Suppose 
them to have urged, in support of their practice, the same 
scriptures with us ; would it not presently have been re- 
plied upon them with unanswerable strength—* Did not 
the apostles and first preachers of Christianity understand 
the true sense and force*of these scriptures ? Yet we all 
perfectly know, and you cannot but own, that not one of 
them ever baptized an infant. Look into all the churches 
throughout the whole earth, and you will fincTthat there 
never was such a thing known, or heard of before amongst 
Christians/— What, under these circumstances, could 
ihefrst baptizers of infants possibly reply ? Could they 

S'etend that it was an apostolick injunction and practice ? 
very Christian then living could have stepped forth t 
*nd borne witness to the falsehood of such an account. 
Could they hope to establish this invention of their own, 
and was it actually established^ in direct opposition to 
apostolick authority ?— -Impossible to imagine !— What 
then, I ask again, (if all the churches in the world were con- 
stituted by the apostles upon a diredtly opposite plan,) 
what could thefrst baptizers of infants urge in favour of 
their practice ? Or how was it possible it should be receiv* 
ed> yea prevail, yea, so universally prevail, that the very 
learned and acute Pelagius, about three hundred years 
after, never heard of a church, amongst either Catholicks or 
hereticks, who did not administer baptism to infants ? 
— -Could we suppose a few persons of so odd a turn of 
mind, as to run into this quite novel and unheard of prac- 
tice ; can it be imagined that whole churches would be led 

♦This contradicts the assertion, which ha» been so often repeated, that infant 
baptist is a " ttUck of popery." The same is contradicted by the fact, that the 
Syrian Christians, yho have bad no connexion with the; Pope, have always prao 
tUfid infant baptism* 



V 



102 

t 

\ 

blindly away after them ? Or, if whole churches might be 
thus seduced, could whole nations be so too ? Yea, if whole 
nations might, can it enter into the heart of any reasonable 
being, that off the nations of the Christian world should, 
in the course of a few years, fall in universally with this 
cntuapostohck and new-invented ceremony of religion, and 
apostatize from the primitive and pure doctrine of Christ ? 
The extravagance of the. supposition is greatly in- 
creased, by remembering that the church was early divid- 
ed into a number of sects, who were sevefe and watchful 
spies upon each other's conduct. If any of thenfi had in, 
novated in the matter, of baptizing infants, how loudly 
would the rest have exclaimed upon the innovation ! But, 
it seems, so far were they from this, that, laying aside their 
prejudices and animosities, they all surprizingly agree, in 
the affair of infant baptism, to depart from the apostolick 
practice ; and, by an unaccountable confederacy, connive 
at one another in this dangerous superstition | Strange* 
beyond all belief! that, amidst their mutual accusations, 
reproaches, and complaints, we meet not, in all antiquity, 
with one upoQ this head !"* I could more easily account 
(unaccountable as the supposition may be) for the intro- 
duction and universal spread of infant baptism in two or 
three centuries, than I could for its introduction, without 
disputes and controversies among Christians, c * No body or 
bodies of men ever changed either their political or religious 
sentiments all at once, without warm and lengthy disputes, 
And if infant baptism had been an innovation— a corrup- 
tion of one of the peculiar ordinances of the gospel — it 
would not have been introduced in the early days of 
Christianity, without commotions, controversies, and divis- 
ions.. But, strange to tell J The pen of history has not 
transmitted to us the least intimation of any controversy a-* 
bout it ; though it has recorded a dispute of far less conse- 
quence—respecting the proper time of baptizing infants !"f 
Add to this, that catalogues of all the sects of professing 
Christians in the four first centuries (the very period When 
infant baptism must have been introduced, if it were not of 
olivine original) were early written, and are still extant.}. 

* Towgood on Inf. Bap. pp. 40—43. t Dr. JDmmohs 1 Serm. on Bap. p. 37, 

% The authors were IrebtjEus, EriPHAwius, Philastrius, Awurr, and TnSr 
OPg&Ey. S?e WaWs Hist, of Inf. Bap. P. u cfcap. xsi, -